Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

St. Helena

Mr. Bob Russell: If he will restore full British citizenship to residents of the island of St. Helena. [64585]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): The issue of British citizenship for all residents of United Kingdom overseas territories who do not already have it is being considered as part of our review of policy towards the overseas territories. The issue will be covered in the overseas territories White Paper, which we expect to publish soon.

Mr. Russell: I am sure that we all welcome the early publication of the White Paper, but can the Minister give any reason why the 5,500 citizens of St. Helena should not have restored to them the full British citizenship that the islanders enjoyed for more than 300 years, before the Conservative Government withdrew it in 1981? Surely the islanders deserve an early return to full British citizenship.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lloyd: I am very pleased to hear members of the official Opposition cheering on the hon. Gentleman. When all is said and done, it was they who took away that right from the St. Helenians, and he is absolutely right about that. I think that he would be happy to acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it very clear for a long time that the issue of citizenship will be treated constructively and sympathetically, but I must tell the House, and those outside who show a keen interest in the matter, that it is still, I am afraid, necessary to wait for the White Paper, which will be published soon.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: While the Minister is considering citizenship for the St. Helenians, will he also recognise that they have grave concerns about their transport links? Is he aware that, in order to attend a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference—which hon. Members of all parties attended, including me—a delegate from the St. Helena Parliament had to

travel for three and a half weeks by ship to Cardiff? Even more urgently than citizenship, the people of St. Helena need an airstrip.

Mr. Lloyd: It may be that, in this case, the people of St. Helena speak for themselves better than the hon. Gentleman speaks for them; when they meet me and other Members of Parliament, they may say that transportation is important, but citizenship is always the issue that they raise first. A review of transportation links is taking place. All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman, and through him to the House and the world, is that the most important thing is to ensure that there is adequate communication. The existing ship that sails regularly to St. Helena must be a long-term part of the island's transportation structure, and we want to do nothing to threaten the viability of that sea route.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Is my hon. Friend alluding to the charge that many of us made against the then Government, that in 1981 the citizens of St. Helena and other dependent territories were treated cynically as pawns, to ensure that that Government did not face continuing embarrassment over large influxes into the United Kingdom of residents of Hong Kong when Britain was negotiating the handover of that territory?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend castigates the official Opposition in their former role as the Government better than I can, but I can assure him that their days in government are now receding rapidly into the past and that it will be a long time before the British people give that failed party any credence and trust them again with the onerous burden of government.

Kosovo

Mr. Martin Bell: What assessment he has made of the prospects for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe verification mission in Kosovo.[64586]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The courage and commitment of the Kosovo verification mission have brought stability to the lives of many in Kosovo by brokering local ceasefires and assisting in the return of refugees. It was months before the world knew the full truth about the massacre in Srebrenica. Thanks to the Kosovo verification mission, we had clear, accurate and reliable information within 24 hours of the atrocity at Racak, and as a result we were able to secure immediate universal condemnation of the massacre.
We deplore Belgrade's decision to designate as persona non grata the head of the Kosovo verification mission, Bill Walker. I have today spoken with both Madeleine Albright and Knut Vollebaek, the current president-in-office of the OSCE. We are all agreed that Bill Walker will stay at his post and continue the work that he is doing with distinction. It is not for President Milosevic to decide who will head the international team.

Mr. Bell: In planning the way forward, is the Foreign Secretary aware of one of the lessons of the Bosnia


experience, that persuasion by itself achieves little and that the threat of force, to be effective, must be matched by a willingness to use it?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As I said to the House yesterday, the NATO planes remain on 96-hour notice and the actord—activation order—remains in force and requires only one political decision to trigger it. We showed last time that we had a credible threat of military force, or we would not have secured the agreement. We are now determined that President Milosevic will honour the agreements that he made.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Is it not clear that President Milosevic has broken every undertaking and assurance given to the International War Crimes Tribunal? Is it not evident that he has no intention of co-operating? What positive action can be taken to punish his flagrant violations?

Mr. Cook: General Clark and General Naumann, the two top North Atlantic Treaty Organisation generals, are currently in Belgrade for discussions with President Milosevic. They will report tomorrow to the North Atlantic Council, which will consider appropriate steps in the light of any assurances that President Milosevic gives. I echo my hon. Friend's reference to the International War Crimes Tribunal: it is vital that it is given access to Kosovo so that it may carry out an independent investigation of what was plainly an atrocious war crime.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: It is clear, is it not, that, but for the presence of the official monitors, the sort of events that occurred last weekend in Kosovo might have been repeated elsewhere on many occasions? When General Wesley Clark talks to Mr. Milosevic today, does he do so with the full political and military authority of NATO? In particular, can the Foreign Secretary assure us that military planning for every eventuality is occurring, covering all options including deployment of troops on the ground?

Mr. Cook: I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that General Clark has the full authority of NATO; he is, after all, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, and he went at the request of the North Atlantic Council following its meeting on Sunday. General Clark's mission carries the full authority of NATO.
Preparations continue, and they have not ceased, on what might be the appropriate military response if one is required. However, there would be grave reservations about committing ground troops in the absence of a clear agreement between the two participants in the conflict on a political outcome and a political track. To put in ground troops without a commitment on both sides of the political process would be to put in ground troops without a clear political objective.

Mr. John Home Robertson: A uniformed police force in Europe is murdering its own citizens in cold blood with the full support of its Government. Like the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), I had hoped to have seen the last of that sort of thing in Bosnia, and that lessons had been learnt from that conflict. As President Milosevic has comprehensively reneged on

the agreement that he made with Richard Holbrooke, can we rely on NATO to take whatever steps may be necessary to degrade or restrain the forces that are perpetrating atrocities?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend can certainly have an assurance that NATO remains fully engaged, fully prepared and fully ready to take whatever action is judged to be necessary. I must remind him that, as has been said already, the presence of the verification mission in Kosovo has prevented such atrocities from occurring much more often than they have. Were we to contemplate going down the road towards military action, the first thing that we would have to consider would be the withdrawal of that verification mission.

Mr. Michael Howard: Has not the situation in Kosovo deteriorated, even since the Foreign Secretary's statement at the Dispatch Box yesterday? The Prime Minister's official spokesman was quoted yesterday as saying that there was little scope for early military action. How can that be reconciled with the statement of a State Department spokesman that NATO would very quickly have to make a decision to use force? How can it be reconciled with the repeated threats of force made by the Foreign Secretary? Does the presence of the verification mission not imply that action will be taken if the mission is not allowed to do its job? What action will be taken if President Milosevic refuses to submit to the demands made by the Foreign Secretary yesterday, and repeated today?

Mr. Cook: First, I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday and discussed with him with great gravity the options available to us. As I said yesterday, NATO has sent its two top generals to Belgrade to repeat to President Milosevic our demands for full compliance. President Milosevic knows full well what NATO had prepared last time round in October when military action was prepared. The actord that authorised the commanders to carry out that action remains in force. It requires only one decision of the North Atlantic Council to start the process, and the council will meet tomorrow to hear the report of the two generals.

EU Enlargement

Dr. Norman A. Godman: When he last met his colleagues from other member states of the European Union to discuss matters relating to enlargement.[64588]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): Enlargement is a regular theme during my meetings with colleagues from other European Union member states. EU Foreign Ministers discussed enlargement issues at each of the General Affairs Councils during the Austrian presidency in 1998.

Dr. Godman: In view of the shenanigans in Strasbourg last week, the failure of the Commission to deal with fraud and the need to reform the common agricultural policy comprehensively, should not Ministers of member states agree to offer an honest and realistic assessment of the timetable for accession? Do not applicant states


deserve that honesty? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of the special European Council in March to persuade her colleagues to be as honest as possible, because there is no chance of those countries coming into the EU within the next 10 years?

Ms Quin: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we have to be honest in our dealings with the applicant countries. I also believe that we must respect the timetables that the European Union has set itself for the reforms that it needs to conclude by March and the March deadline set by the European Parliament for action on fraud by the Commission.

Mr. John Bercow: Does the right hon. Lady recall the first sentence of the communiqué agreed at the Vienna summit:
European integration has gained new momentum"?
In the light of that first sentence, does she think that her right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has cause to regret his claim that the Maastricht treaty represented a "high watermark of integration"? Will she confirm that we will now be faced with ever-increasing demands for greater European integration, which everyone who believes in national self-government should continually resist?

Ms Quin: When the hon. Gentleman asks questions in the House, he always seems keen to overlook the fact that the Maastricht treaty was concluded under the stewardship of a Conservative Government, as was the single market, which represented a big step forward. If he is against the single market, he will find few allies in the House. The Vienna conclusions to which he referred are worth while and show the areas of agreement between European countries, which are very much in the interests of the citizens of this country and of citizens throughout the EU.

Mr. Robin Corbett: What progress has been made in discussions between the Government of Turkey and the European Commission on drawing up an understanding of what Turkey needs to do to fulfil conditions for an approach to membership of the EU?

Ms Quin: It is clear that Turkey would need to meet the criteria that all other countries need to meet if they are to become part of the European Union. Those include important economic criteria and important political criteria relating to democracy and human rights.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister accept that, after enlargement, countries that come into the EU will take a substantial share of its structural funds? In those circumstances, does that not put additional pressure on us in the period up to 2006 to maximise the benefit that comes to the countries of the United Kingdom from those funds? Can she assure us that the Government are turning every stone to achieve that?

Ms Quin: Indeed; I believe that the Government have already negotiated with a good degree of success on the retention of structural funds, in particular the use of objective 1 funds, which are likely to go to additional areas in the UK. That is important. Also, we have to prepare adequately for enlargement and to recognise the

financial responsibilities that all EU countries have to make that enlargement process a success. The long-term economic benefits of enlargement will be considerable.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Minister's Department audit ministerial visits to the principal applicant countries of the European Union, as compared with those of Ministers from our EU counterparts? Does she realise that the United Kingdom, both under this Government and the previous Administration, is insufficiently engaged in terms of ministerial visits to applicant countries in central Europe? The United Kingdom does not compare favourably when one considers the visits made by German Chancellors or French Prime Ministers and Presidents. I hope that that will change.

Ms Quin: I do not accept that there are insufficient ministerial contacts. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has visited several applicant countries in recent months. I assure my hon. Friend that we wish to ensure the best possible co-ordination of ministerial visits. [Interruption.] I am trying to give the House some information, which is difficult because it is, unfortunately, wasted on Conservative Members. Through the co-ordination committee that I chair, we seek to co-ordinate ministerial visits to make maximum use of our contacts, not only with existing European Union countries but, very importantly, with the applicant countries.

Mr. Michael Howard: Can the right hon. Lady clarify whether candidate countries are to be required to join the economic and monetary union? Would that not erect further hurdles in their path? Can she confirm—I understand that she was at the relevant meeting—that the Foreign Secretary recently described the Government's approach to the euro as unsustainable?

Ms Quin: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point is not correct. On his earlier point, the candidate countries express great interest in belonging to the euro zone, but the conditions for them will be negotiated during the current accession negotiations. We are keen to ensure that their conclusion represents a good balance between the European Union's interests and those of the applicant countries.

Middle East Peace Process

Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on the middle east peace process following the Wye agreement.[64589]

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: If he will make a statement on action by the British Government to support the middle east peace process. [64593]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We believe that the Wye agreement offers the best way forward in the middle east peace process. We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Government of Israel to freeze progress on its implementation. Both sides should abide by the commitments that they entered into at Wye and refrain from unilateral acts that undermine it. Both the


Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority would benefit from progress on the peace. Both should now demonstrate an equal commitment to it.

Dr. Iddon: Assuming that the Palestinians declare statehood on the intended date, what will the Government's reaction be?

Mr. Cook: I have just told the House that we would call on both sides to refrain from unilateral acts that would undermine the peace process. I fully understand the frustration in the Palestinian Authority about the fact that 4 May is the terminal date of the Oslo process. It was anticipated that the final stages would have been resolved by then. It remains the view of Britain that all options should be available through self-government decisions by the Palestinian people, not excluding the option of an independent state. However, we would hope that such progress could be achieved through the peace process and not by unilateral action.

Dr. Starkey: Since the Wye agreement was signed at the end of October, 251 Palestinian political prisoners have been detained by the Israeli Government. The Israelis have confiscated a further 3,000 acres of Palestinian land and accelerated the building of Jewish housing on it. What action are the British Government taking to represent to the Israelis that those activities must cease and that their unilateral suspension of the Wye agreement until after the Israeli general election in May is incredibly unhelpful, and not what one would expect of a state that has signed a binding agreement?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, if the Israeli Government wish to make progress with the peace process, they must carry out the implementation of the peace agreement that they agreed at the Wye Plantation talks.
With reference to settlements, my hon. Friend helpfully highlights the other side of unilateral acts—in this case, by the Government of Israel. I repeat our appeal to both sides to cease unilateral actions so that we can make progress via the negotiating table.
To answer my hon. Friend's question about what the Government are doing, I can tell her that, with our European colleagues, we prepare quarterly reports on settlement activity. Those reports are widely available and should inform public debate. We repeat our appeal to the Government of Israel to desist from those unilateral steps that make it so much more difficult to take forward a negotiated agreement.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Given the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to an ethical foreign policy, does he agree that, in the light of Israeli obduracy, a continuing and monstrous injustice is being done to the Palestinians? Accordingly, does he not consider that it is about time we decoupled ourselves from the pointless, fatuous and ineffective middle east policy of the United States of America, to whose coat tails we continue to hang in that department; and that we should try to create a sensible, pragmatic, European policy that we can follow with pride and good sense?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman addresses the House with his characteristic robustness and trenchancy. Of course, we shall continue to explore, with our European colleagues, what helpful initiatives can be taken by Europe.

Mr. John Bercow: Do not bother.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman tells me not to bother, but Europe is underpinning the peace process with funding. If it was not for Europe putting that money behind the peace process, the process would have crumbled long ago. It little befits him to say that we should not bother to keep the peace process in being.
On the efforts of the United States, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) should remember that the United States brokered the Wye Plantation agreement. That agreement provided a way forward, and Europe and America will now maintain pressure on both parties to ensure that they make progress in implementing that agreement.

Kashmir

Mr. John Heppell: What recent discussions he has had with the Government of India on the future of Kashmir.[64590]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We regularly discuss Kashmir with representatives of India and Pakistan.

Mr. Heppell: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will have welcomed the talks that took place at the end of last year between the Pakistan and Indian Governments and the confidence-building measures that resulted. Will he assure me that the British Government will be prepared to accept a solution in Jammu and Kashmir only if it has actually been put to the people of Jammu and Kashmir?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right to say that we welcomed the talks that took place last year, and we look forward to the next round of talks in February. We hope that those talks will deal with the crucial issues between India and Pakistan and there is no more important issue between those two countries than the future of Kashmir. I agree with my hon. Friend that any future agreement reached between India and Pakistan will stand only if it has popular support.

Mr. Michael Colvin: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that problems over Kashmir have arisen only because Britain pulled out of India six months earlier than agreed, under a previous Labour Administration. Does he agree that we therefore have an important responsibility in respect of the future of Kashmir, because the people of Kashmir have always been denied an opportunity to decide their own destiny? The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the existence of the Simla agreement and, when he last answered questions in the House on Kashmir, he said that Pakistan would be happy for Britain to take part—perhaps as chairman—in discussions under the provisions of the Simla agreement. However, we still await a view from India on the matter. Has the right hon. Gentleman raised the subject in his discussions with the Indians, and is there any hope that


Britain could act as an independent chairman to bring the two sides closer together and to get agreement over Kashmir, as provided under the Simla agreement?

Mr. Fatchett: Both the Indian and Pakistan Governments feel that the best way to make immediate progress on all their bilateral relations is for them to engage in talks. If, at any stage, the two countries told the United Kingdom that we could play a responsible and constructive role, we should be happy to do so. Both Governments know that.

Entry Clearance Interviews

Mr. Neil Gerrard: When he plans to introduce tape recording of interviews by entry clearance offices at overseas posts. [64591]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): In accordance with the recommendation of the recent Foreign Affairs Committee's fourth report on entry clearance operations, the Department is planning a pilot project. Preparations are under way for the pilot system to be installed as soon as practicable in the financial year 1999–2000.

Mr. Gerrard: I welcome that news, as some hon. Members have pressed for such a project for a long time. Can the Minister confirm that the pilot will cover the full range of interviews, including interviews for settlement and visits? Will he confirm also that the pilot's time scale will be as short as possible so that we can evaluate the findings and look at extending it to other posts? Can the Minister give us any idea of which posts will be considered for pilot projects? Will he take into consideration the number of problems and complaints that have been brought to the attention of his Department by hon. Members whose constituents have experienced difficulties in particular posts?

Mr. Fatchett: We have not yet decided on a post, but I welcome my hon. Friend's broad comments. We aim to keep the pilot as short as possible, but we must have an opportunity to make an effective evaluation of the way in which the pilot system works. When it comes to that assessment, we must be open to any possibilities that may flow from the pilot system. I assure my hon. Friend and any other hon. Members who have an interest in these matters that we will be open with them and will look to engage them in discussion about possible developments.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: The Minister may know that I founded the Immigration Advisory Service, which plays a large part in such matters. I welcome the Minister's comments today. He knows that we introduced tape-recorded interviews into our criminal justice system to ensure fairness and protection for the defendant. Many Conservative Members believe that fairness and protection for those seeking entry to this country would also be greatly enhanced by the rapid introduction of tape-recorded interviews. I hope that they will be introduced very widely very soon.

Mr. Fatchett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for his work with the Immigration Advisory Service. We must learn from the pilot before we

move towards using extensive tape recording as a means of reaching decisions. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that may be an effective means of ensuring fairness.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I welcome the Minister's decision to start the pilot project and suggest that he chooses the Bombay post as the subject of the study. Does the Minister agree that, even with recorded interviews, unless we examine the way in which the migration and visa correspondence unit operates when taking statements, there is a risk that, because of MVCU inefficiency, those statements will never reach the applicants in this country?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend raised several concerns about the migration and visa correspondence unit in an Adjournment debate last week. I said at the time that we would examine those points and do all that we could to improve the unit's efficiency. My hon. Friend kindly made some complimentary comments about the work of the entry clearance staff, the burdens that they carry and the way in which they discharge them. I hear what my hon. Friend has said about Bombay and I understand his reasons for suggesting that post. However, we shall also consider other posts before taking a decision.

Iraq

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What assessment he has made of Iraq's compliance with United Nations resolutions.[64592]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I regret to say that Iraq persists in failing to comply with many of the requirements of Security Council resolutions. It has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction and it continues with gross violations of human rights, including torture, extra-judicial killing and suppression of ethnic minorities. It has also failed to release or to provide any account of the fate of the 600 detainees removed from Kuwait.
The recent threat by the Iraqi Assembly to withdraw recognition of the Kuwaiti border is the latest example of Iraq's wilful failure to accept its obligations to either its neighbours or the international community.

Mr. Winterton: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that full and rational reply. He clearly agrees that Saddam Hussein is flagrantly ignoring his international obligations under United Nations resolutions. Does he agree also that many Arab nations are urging Saddam Hussein to work closely with the United Nations and to obey the United Nations resolutions? Even the distinguished leader of Egypt, President Mubarak, blames Saddam Hussein for the suffering of the Iraqi people.
What further steps can be taken to bring Saddam Hussein to account for the danger that he poses to the world?
On a more minor matter, is not Saddam Hussein continuing frequently to violate the no-fly zone, hampering the west in what it is seeking to do?

Mr. Cook: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, Saddam Hussein has on one occasion attempted to fly planes in


the no-fly zone, which produced an immediate response from us. He has repeatedly threatened the allied aircraft that are enforcing the no-fly zone. We shall continue to enforce that zone and to take necessary measures in self-defence. The House should remember that the no-fly zone is not in any way a threat to the Iraqi people; it is there to defend them against being bombed by Saddam Hussein.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in what he says about the Arab nations. Saddam Hussein's recent speech in which he characterised all other Arab Governments as dwarves and cowards has done much to restore solidarity among Arab nations. They know perfectly well that they are the ones against whom the weapons of mass destruction will be targeted.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I visited northern Iraq—Kurdistan—just before Christmas? I was deeply moved by the Kurds' view that Saddam Hussein, in violating United Nations Security Council resolutions 986 and 688, was mainly responsible for the suffering in Iraq. Will my right hon. Friend therefore assure me and the Kurds that the Government will take every step, particularly in the United Nations, to ensure that Saddam is not given opportunities to punish his own people further?

Mr. Cook: I can assure my right hon. Friend that I was aware of his visit to northern Iraq because it was brought to my attention at the very interesting time at which he was in the Kurdish area. I assure him and the people of that area that Britain will remain committed to making sure that Saddam cannot infringe the no-fly zone. We recognise that Saddam is sustained in power not by public opinion but by the savage, brutal repression of all those who would otherwise challenge him.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: With Saddam clearly not back in his cage, as the Secretary of State promised, the need for a new approach to the Iraqi regime is now very urgent. The French and the Russians are calling for a relaxation of sanctions, which is alarming the people in northern Iraq, who fear that they may lose the oil revenues that they receive for humanitarian purposes directly from the UN escrow account and be forced, once again, to rely directly on Saddam and Baghdad.
Will the Secretary of State assure us that on this occasion the new approach will be properly thought through and that he will ensure not only that Saddam' s capacity to produce weapons is monitored, but that any new approach will give full weight to making sure that food and medical supplies reach the children and people of Iraq who are suffering at the hands of Saddam Hussein?

Mr. Cook: I can repeat to the hon. Lady and the House the assurances that I have given several times—there are no sanctions against imports of food and medicines by Saddam Hussein and, in a period when he persists in saying that his people go hungry, his harvest in Iraq has increased by 15 per cent. We are certainly exploring how we can build a diplomatic consensus to isolate Saddam Hussein and we are in dialogue with France and Russia on those points.
I am unclear as to whether the hon. Lady was seeking the relaxation of sanctions, but if Saddam Hussein wants sanctions to be relaxed, he should comply with the Security Council resolutions and abandon his expensive programme of developing weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Foreign Secretary explain why the Government treat Iraq and Israel differently when they are both in breach of UN resolutions? Does he accept that the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of both those countries are outlawed by the United Nations? We know the Government's position on Iraq; will he now explain their position on Israel?

Mr. Cook: I have already this afternoon explained our position in relation to the Government of Israel and made it perfectly plain that we greatly regret their unilateral actions which undermine the peace process. If my hon. Friend is attempting to put both Governments in the same box, he should reflect on the fact that Saddam Hussein is the leader of a country in which he has himself used chemical and biological weapons. He used them extensively against his neighbour in the Iran-Iraq war and used them mercilessly against his own people in the Kurdish area where he killed 5,000 villagers when he attacked Halabja. We cannot walk away and leave a man with such a track record in possession of those weapons.

Diplomats (Ethical Foreign Policy)

Mr. Tim Boswell: What training his Department provides to diplomats in the execution of an ethical foreign policy.[64595]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): All new entrants attend a one-day human rights course. We run regular courses for other officers, with non-governmental organisation participation. New heads of mission are briefed by the head of the human rights policy department before posting. Where relevant, they are briefed by NGOs such as Amnesty International and the Save the Children Fund.

Mr. Boswell: Does the Minister agree that the logic of the Government's position is that Ministers and diplomats must resist all temptation to discriminate by picking on smaller and perhaps less significant countries in respect of minor defects, because it is safe to do so, while conveniently overlooking much greater defects on the part of countries that are powerful or where major trade interests are involved? Will he remind his diplomats that in those circumstances, and in the context of the Government's general policy, they have not merely a responsibility but an obligation to draw to the authorities' attention any cases of inappropriate discrimination?

Mr. Lloyd: I am delighted to be able to agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. Of course it is right and proper that no distinction should be made between abuses of human rights, whether perpetrated by large or small nations. I assure him that the Government try to and succeed in maintaining a consistency of approach, whether such abuses are perpetrated by countries with which we have strong bilateral interests or by those with which we have relatively little contact.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The House must be heartened to see the sudden interest in a moral and ethical


foreign policy exhibited by the Opposition. Those of us who have been here for the past 18 years certainly did not discern it in the Conservative Government's approach to some of the minor and larger Governments with whom they dealt.
Is my hon. Friend aware that he will have the support of the whole House if he and his colleagues continue to take actions such as those which led to the establishment of the international criminal court, which is clearly needed given the evidence of what we have seen of Milosevic in Kosovo in the past few days?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. The previous Government's record did not stand close examination in respect of human rights. That was a disgrace, not only for Parliament but for the whole nation. Since the general election, Britain's image has undergone a radical transformation abroad, precisely because of this Government's level of activity. My hon. Friend mentioned the international criminal court, but I could also mention the human rights fund, a changed policy on arms sales, support for the international tribunals in Yugoslavia and Rwanda and many more initiatives, not all of which received support from the Opposition.

Mr. Michael Trend: Will the Minister consider it a success for the Government's ethical foreign policy if reports in this weekend's press prove to be accurate? I refer to the report that the Foreign Office assured the Chilean ambassador on Friday 16 October that nothing would happen to Senator Pinochet before 20 October, four days later. However, within 24 hours, Senator Pinochet had been arrested. The Minister will surely understand that suggestions that the senator was entrapped in Britain by the Government, deliberately or through incompetence, will do little to enhance their ethical reputation. Will the Minister now clear up that question for the House?

Mr. Lloyd: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that he should not believe everything that he reads in the press.

Mr. Michael Howard: Answer the question.

Mr. Lloyd: I intend to answer the question. Had the shadow Foreign Secretary taken the trouble to read Hansard this morning, he would have seen that it is already answered today in any case. There is absolutely no truth whatever in such suggestions. No such commitment was given either directly to Senator Pinochet or to his representatives. The House should know that we respect the rights even of Senator Pinochet, which is why his case is now before the judicial system, not the political system—a very important distinction that he did not make in Chile.

Burma

Gillian Merron: What steps he is taking to encourage democracy in Burma. [64596]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): The United Kingdom is at the forefront of international action to press the Burmese regime to abandon its repressive policies and enter into

dialogue with pro-democracy leaders. We supported the renewal and strengthening of the European Union common position in October and co-sponsored the United Nations General Assembly resolution in December.

Gillian Merron: I thank the Minister for that answer. How important does he feel is the role of the BBC World Service in promoting democracy in Burma? Can he reassure the House about the level of financial support being given by the Foreign Office to the BBC World Service to enable it to do that?

Mr. Fatchett: I know that the BBC World Service is widely respected by all those who favour and believe in democracy in Burma. We look forward to the BBC World Service continuing to play an excellent role; that is why the Government have ensured that, over the next three years, the BBC World Service will have a £44.2 million increase in funding, representing an increase of 3.8 per cent. in real terms in each of those years. That increase in real terms contrasts sharply with the 7 per cent. cut in real terms that took place during the last five years of the previous Government. The BBC World Service is valued by Labour; it was cut by the Conservative party.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am sure that the whole House would agree that the World Service does a wonderful job, and I congratulate the Minister on what has been done for it. Is it not time for the repressive regime in Burma to be brought before an international court for the actions that it has taken against some of its citizens?

Mr. Fatchett: I very much appreciate the comments that the hon. Gentleman has just made about our role with the BBC World Service. As for the regime in Burma, I sympathise with the argument that he made. The regime has the worst record in the world; we continue to condemn that record. We continue to ensure that pressure builds on the regime in Burma, and we feel that it is crucial that that pressure is maintained so that we can ensure that dialogue is engaged with the pro-democracy forces.

Iraq

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: When he next intends to discuss the Basra enclave with his US counterpart.[64598]

Mr. Fatchett: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans to discuss a Basra enclave with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, but we are in frequent contact on a wide range of Iraq-related issues, most recently on 10 January 1999.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On the question of a new approach, are the Government in principle opposed to a sanctions-free Basra enclave in southern Iraq?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend has advanced that idea for some time. We continue to look at ideas that will enable us to achieve our objectives of disarmament, containment and helping the people of Iraq. I am not yet convinced that my hon. Friend's notion is the best way to proceed, but we shall certainly continue to consider all ideas.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Government consider a longer-term solution for the people of Basra



and for the other people of Iraq? At the moment, every few months there is yet another crisis in Iraq; yet more bombs are dropped in Iraq; and yet more Iraqi people are killed. The Government have already expressed support for Indict. What steps have the Government taken at the United Nations to indict Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi war criminals, and will the Government make it their policy to support those in Basra and the rest of Iraq who wish to change the Government in Baghdad?

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman is right yet again to draw attention to the record of the regime in Baghdad. In much of the current debate, the report by the UN special rapporteur on human rights, Max van der Stoel, is often overlooked, but the most recent report sets out a catalogue of human rights violations by the regime in Baghdad—a catalogue that every hon. Member should look at and remember. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the Government support the Indict campaign. It is crucial to remind the world of Saddam Hussein's record, and we shall continue to do so. It would be a perverse person indeed who did not recognise that a change of Government and change of regime in Baghdad would be in the interests of the people of Iraq.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I am pleased that the Government do not favour the Basra enclave option. Would it not lead to the beginning of the break-up of Iraq and problems over which area Basra would be associated with—for instance, with Iran? Given that Basra is the only port in Iraq, the people of Iraq, who are already in very bad economic circumstances, would be cut off from their supplies. If the enclave were established, it would look like American-British occupation.

Mr. Fatchett: We have always said that we want to maintain the territorial and political integrity of Iraq. My hon. Friend makes several important points in that context. We shall certainly continue to ensure the imposition of no-fly zones, which are very important to the security of people in southern and northern Iraq. To remind the House of what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier, those no-fly zones are there to protect the ordinary people of Iraq, and are crucial for that reason.

Nigeria

Mr. Edward Garnier: What steps he is taking to assist in the re-establishment of an independent judiciary in Nigeria. [64599]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We welcome the steps that Nigeria has taken to strengthen an independent judiciary by the installation of a democratically elected Nigerian Government. Through our good governance fund, which is administered by the high commission in Lagos, we have offered support to civil society, including help for the judicial system and for lawyers specialising in human rights work.

Mr. Garnier: That is no doubt a well-intended answer, but it is not a very clear one. Will the Minister clarify precisely what he means by it?

Mr. Lloyd: Of course I will clarify it. For example, the high commissioner in Abuja made it clear to the Nigerian

Attorney-General and Minister of Justice in September that Her Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance to an independent judiciary. To achieve that, we have taken steps with the chief judge of Lagos state and the Nigerian Institute for Advanced Legal Studies to modify court procedures in order to reduce the number of people on remand.
In the second phase of the court assistance programme, chief justices, attorney-generals, bar associations and other eminent lawyers will work with British colleagues to devise other ways in which to implement a case-flow management system. We are arranging for the chief justice of Lagos state to visit legal institutions in Britain early this year. We have a very good record, which will of course improve with a democratic Government in Lagos. We can begin to reinstitute programme aid, which will allow us directly to assist the federal legal system.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is my hon. Friend aware of the continued failure of the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to communicate or co-operate properly with our high commission in Nigeria on consular cases? I have been trying to pursue a case of a constituent of mine who was murdered in that country. I know that there has been virtually no response from Nigerian authorities. The Nigerian Government give information to oil companies in the country, but those companies do not always—in fact, quite commonly do not—share it with our high commission. Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Nigerian Government that such a way of operating is unacceptable? Will he tell oil companies that operate in Nigeria that it is unacceptable not to share information on their employees, especially when hostage taking is involved?

Mr. Lloyd: The House will sympathise with my hon. Friend and, indeed, his constituents, who have suffered such a loss. We would all accept that there is a duty not simply on the Foreign Office but on Governments of countries in which British citizens are killed—indeed, murdered—to ensure not only that a full investigation is carried out, but that its results are made available to the families of the victims. If my hon. Friend wants to talk either to me or to my noble Friend Baroness Symons, I am sure that we can find ways in which to pursue the matter for him.

Chile

Mr. John Wilkinson: What measures he has taken to improve the United Kingdom's relations with Chile. [64600]

Mr. Tim Loughton: What ministerial visits to Chile are scheduled in 1999. [64602]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): In recent weeks I have held meetings with both the Foreign Minister and the Deputy Foreign Minister of Chile. During the recess I met our ambassador to Santiago, who was at home on annual leave. The Chilean Foreign Minister and I remain in regular contact and we have both


expressed our determination not to allow the legal process concerning Senator Pinochet to disrupt long-term relations between our countries.

Mr. Wilkinson: What engenders in our natural friends such a profound antipathy towards Her Majesty's Government—an antipathy that is widespread in official circles, but not among the Chilean population? Is it because the Government regard Chile as a country very far away, of which they know extremely little and care even less? Is it because the Government have a predisposition to neo-colonialist interference in other nations' internal affairs? Or is it because the Government have acquired their knowledge of Chile from National Union of Students broadsheets of some 25 years ago?

Mr. Cook: When Mr. Insulza, the Chilean Foreign Minister, left the meeting that he had with me, he said that he fully understood the position taken by the British Government. There was no great antipathy there. As regards the opinion of the people of Chile, last month 44 per cent. said they believed that Senator Pinochet's detention in the United Kingdom was a good thing, and 45 per cent. said that it was bad. There was no massive antipathy there.
Our conduct in the case is governed solely by one consideration, which the hon. Gentleman should share—that we should uphold the rule of law and due legal process. He should be ashamed to plead that we should suspend the rule of law because one of his political friends is in front of it at present.

Mr. Loughton: May I take it from the Foreign Secretary's failure to list any future visits to Chile that he now acknowledges that relations between the United Kingdom and foreign countries are best served and improved when he and his colleagues stay at home, rather than jumping on to Concorde or private jets? Will he acknowledge that, given the Government's admission that British companies are losing business and contracts in Chile, and given the assessment that the trial of General Pinochet could cost the British taxpayer more than £30 million, breaking even the record of the Maxwell brothers, it would have been better to send General Pinochet back home to face due process in his own country, rather than subject the United Kingdom to this expensive and damaging circus?

Mr. Cook: Let us be quite plain about what the hon. Gentleman is asking. He is asking the Government to defy the courts and end due legal process. He is asking us to set aside a legally proper and properly submitted request for extradition from the Spanish authorities. Yes, it may

well cost us some money to meet that extradition requirement. The standard basis on which the financial cost of extradition proceedings is met is exactly the same as it was under the Conservative Government: we meet the extradition costs for applications to our country, and Spain meets the extradition costs for applications that we make to Spain. If we expect Spain to honour that, we must honour our side of the bargain.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Foreign Secretary take some time to look through the archives in the Foreign Office, and reveal all the documentation available to him about the relationship between past Conservative Governments and the fascist organisations in Chile, and in particular any documentation relating to Operation Condor, under which General Pinochet and Argentinian generals hunted down and assassinated Orlando Letelier, General Prats and others, and a British citizen, William Beausire, was hijacked out of Argentina and subsequently died in Chile? Does the Foreign Secretary accept that revealing everything that we know will help the process of restoring human rights and putting on record the truth of what happened in Chile during the terrible years from 1973 to 1990?

Mr. Cook: I cannot enter into discussion of the substance of the matter that is currently before the courts. In response to my hon. Friend's plea for full disclosure, may I say that we stand ready to assist the courts in any matter in which the courts may seek our assistance.
In view of reports in one of the papers this morning, may I tell the House that at this morning's hearing, Lord Browne-Wilkinson said that he wished to correct the suggestion in the press that the Foreign Office had refused a certificate on grounds of secrecy. He said that that was not correct at all. We will be happy to help the courts in any way that we can.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend remember that the gift of this Parliament to the Chilean Parliament following its first democratic elections after the brutal regime of Pinochet was a copy of the Magna Carta? Is he aware how strongly the people of Chile, particularly those committed to the democratic system, honour the support for human rights that this country has always upheld, and how much we are admired because of our acceptance of an independent legal system that can judge those who condone murder and torture fairly, without political intervention?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes her point perfectly well. The upholding of that independent legal system is central to our democratic constitution, and our respect for it is widely respected throughout Chile.

Sierra Leone

Mr. Simon Hughes: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Sierra Leone and Her Majesty's Government's response.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We have followed recent events in Sierra Leone with grave concern. In December, the rebels moved closer to Freetown. On 23 December we took the decision to advise British citizens to leave immediately and organised a Royal Air Force airlift for those British nationals who wanted to leave.
The rebels entered Freetown on 6 January. There then followed more than a week of looting and anarchy in which the rebels amply demonstrated their brutality, which repeatedly has blighted Sierra Leone.
As a result of a counter-offensive by ECOMOG forces, mainly Nigerian troops, the rebels have since been driven out of most of Freetown. Many hundreds of ECOMOG troops have been killed in the fighting. The House will wish to pay its respect to the courage and sacrifice of those who have fought to sustain the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone. We are relieved that the capital has not fallen, but the situation remains worrying. Much of Freetown has been destroyed and much of the rest of the country remains in rebel hands.
Britain has been the principal supporter in the international community for President Kabbah and the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone. First, we have provided more material help to the ECOMOG and Sierra Leone forces than any other nation from outside the region. Following two conversations that I had during the recess with the Nigerian Foreign Minister, we released early this month an additional £1 million pounds-worth of trucks and communication equipment. We have also shared with ECOMOG intelligence on the situation on the ground, and have provided it with maps of Sierra Leone to which it previously did not have access. This morning General Abubakar, Head of State of Nigeria, rang my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to express his thanks for British support and assistance.
Secondly, we have been active in rallying support within the international community. We secured a statement from both the Security Council and the European Union condemning the rebels, and I have given notice that I intend to raise Sierra Leone at next Monday's meeting of European Foreign Ministers. I have also sent a personal message to President Taylor of Liberia demanding that he withdraw support from the rebel forces.
Finally, Britain remains much the largest national donor to Sierra Leone of reconstruction aid and humanitarian assistance. Since the restoration of President Kabbah, Britain has committed more than £20 million in assistance to Sierra Leone. HMS Norfolk has now been stationed off Sierra Leone to provide humanitarian support and assistance. I can today announce to the House that the Government will be urgently releasing another £1 million of humanitarian assistance for the people of Sierra Leone and logistical support for ECOMOG.
We still have a long way to go to restore an integrated, stable Sierra Leone. Britain will remain fully committed to alleviating the suffering of its people, and to providing practical and political support for their right to be ruled by the legitimate Government of their choice.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I associate myself and, I imagine, all other hon. Members, with his statement of concern and condolence to those who have suffered under what, we understand, have been barbarous conditions.
The Government's efforts have been greatly appreciated in Sierra Leone and by the large Sierra Leonean community in Britain, who are hugely concerned about both the present and the future.
I shall be more specific on one or two matters. Will food aid, which I gather is greatly needed, and assistance with rehousing continue? The Foreign Secretary rightly said that large parts of Freetown have been destroyed. There is a large refugee problem and I understand that items such as tents would be greatly appreciated. Help is also needed in relocating people—in a civilian context, helicopters and other forms of transport would be very acceptable.
Secondly, and understandably, the humanitarian agencies withdrew at about the turn of the year. Are the Government able to be part of the international effort to bring them back to do the work for which they are hugely respected and very much needed?
Lastly, may I encourage the Foreign Secretary, along the lines of a sign that he gave to the House, to say that the Government, together with the Commonwealth and their European Union partners, will work for the security of Sierra Leone, especially along its frontiers, so that it can be allowed to redevelop with integrity and without risk of people from outside coming into the country, something that has so often destabilised it in the past?

Mr. Cook: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said in recognition of efforts. He speaks with authority, because he has a large constituency interest in this matter.
We are indeed looking at what might be the most appropriate aid for Sierra Leone. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has arranged for supplies to be flown out to Sierra Leone. They are being distributed with the help of the helicopter from HMS Norfolk, and that was the prime purpose of stationing HMS Norfolk in the region. We are focusing at the moment on urgent medical supplies, but, obviously, the food situation will be kept under review.
I regret to say to the House that the hon. Gentleman is quite right about the refugee situation. We believe that there are more than 200,000 refugees, which is a large proportion of a relatively small country. They will require substantial assistance for relocation and resettlement. James Jonah, the Minister of Finance and senior Cabinet Minister in the Government of Sierra Leone, is currently in London and is, I believe, having talks tomorrow with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development.
Finally, of course the humanitarian aspects of this tragedy can be corrected only within a secure framework of stability. That is why we have tried to bring the sides together, and will continue to press for negotiations and mediation to try to resolve this tragic conflict.


That requires a two-track approach: first, robust engagement on the military front, which we are supporting, but also negotiation to secure political agreement to disarmament and demobilisation.

Mr. Michael Howard: The whole House will want to join in the expressions of condolence—and, indeed, the tribute—from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the Foreign Secretary. The reports that we have read of the scenes in Freetown are gruesome—none the less so because they have not featured on our television screens to the same extent as atrocities elsewhere in the world.
Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House the remit that has been given to HMS Norfolk and to Brigadier David Richards, the leader of the British military reconnaissance team? Are arms finding their way to the rebels in Sierra Leone from Liberia and elsewhere? If so, is that not a flagrant breach of the United Nations embargo? What action is the UN taking to deal with that breach?

Mr. Cook: Let me clarify the fact that the role of HMS Norfolk is very much in support of humanitarian assistance and relief, and its helicopter has already been making a practical contribution to that. We do not intend for any British military assets to become involved in the military conflict, although we have supplied ECOMOG with non-lethal equipment, such as trucks and communication equipment, and are supporting it with intelligence.
On the question of the supply of arms, the legal position is perfectly clear. There is a UN embargo, which applies to any of the rebel forces or the forces outside the control of ECOMOG or the Sierra Leone Government. Any breach of that embargo would be a crime in British law. I am not, at present, aware of any such breach. I have heard of a press report of such a breach, and that report has been drawn to the attention of Customs and Excise.
I agree absolutely with the right hon. and learned Member that the scenes in Freetown were harrowing. We must make sure that, as we vigorously pursue those who commit atrocities within the European continent, there are no double standards and that we equally vigorously pursue those who are the perpetrators of such atrocities in Africa.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Sierra Leone is a friendly Commonwealth country, and it is right, in its time of travail, that this Government should play such as a leading role in its relief. My right hon. Friend mentioned two points. First, it is alleged that British companies are involved in the supply of arms to the rebels—the AFRC/RUF. How rigorously is Customs and Excise looking into those allegations, which were made two weeks or so ago in the British press? Secondly, President Taylor of Liberia is alleged to be not only supplying arms and men to the AFRC/RUF rebels, but making territorial claims on Sierra Leone. To what extent are we and our allies seeking to exercise leverage on President Taylor? I presume that he is fairly dependent on external aid, so there must be means by which we can put pressure on him.

Mr. Cook: It is not for me to speak on behalf of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, but I am confident that it

will rigorously pursue the evidence and any lead that it has about breaches of the embargo. On the other matter that my hon. Friend raises, I sent a strong message to President Taylor on 31 December demanding that all support for the rebels stop immediately. My hon. Friend rightly points out the extent to which Liberia also requires support from the outside world. I pointed out to President Taylor that continuing support for instability and insecurity in Sierra Leone could damage Liberia's standing with international financial institutions. It is important that all countries of the region support the regional strategy of trying to ensure stability and security in Sierra Leone and play their part in backing the ECOMOG forces.

Mr. Tom King: The Foreign Secretary said that he would raise the matter of Sierra Leone with his colleagues in the European Union, but he did not say what he would say to them. What proposals might he have when he raises the matter?
In connection with present assistance, there is the British military mission. Does the Foreign Secretary believe that it would be right to give, if required, military assistance to the legitimate Government, although not, of course, to the rebels?

Mr. Cook: With respect to the forthcoming meeting on Monday, I shall make the same appeal to my colleagues in Europe as I have already made to other Governments, including only on Saturday to Madeleine Albright of the United States—that is, for other western nations to join us in ensuring that ECOMOG has the logistical support, the equipment and the finance to continue with its important work.
We should remember that the ECOMOG expeditionary force in Sierra Leone costs Nigeria £1 million a day. That is a large sum for a Government who are wrestling with their legacy from years of abuse and corruption by the previous military junta. In terms of the supply of weapons to Sierra Leone, for some time, the legal position has been that it is not contrary to UN law to supply the Sierra Leone Government, but it would be contrary to the UN resolution and embargo to supply the rebel forces. Sierra Leone is a country with too many forces too well armed. One way to secure peace and stability there would be to dry up the supply of firearms to forces outside the Government, and we shall play our part in doing so.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Will my right hon. Friend look at the wider implications of this conflict? It is one of a number of conflicts in Africa where secessionist groups or attempted coups have led to civil conflict and mass movements of refugees. Is it not time that the international community, particularly the Commonwealth and the European Union, worked collectively towards building an international force or security architecture to assist small countries facing well-armed insurgency?

Mr. Cook: We are very willing to play our part in peacekeeping intervention. In the context of Africa, Britain plays a leading role in training African forces for peacekeeping missions. In terms of troops on the ground, the correct way to proceed is to look to African states, through bodies such as ECOWAS—the Economic Community of West African States—in west Africa and


the Organisation of African Unity elsewhere to supply troops for the peacekeeping enterprises. We can certainly supply the training and some of the logistic and communications support, and we are doing much of that in the case of ECOMOG.
The great tragedy of Sierra Leone is that it is one of the poorest countries in the world, yet it is potentially rich in diamonds and in agricultural and fishery resources. It is essential that we provide stability, security and peace, so that those resources can be properly exploited by the people, and not by the armed forces who are rebelling against the Government.

Sir Peter Emery: Is President Kabbah in Freetown or in Conakry, and is our high commissioner, Mr. Penfold, with him? If he is, has the Foreign Office ensured that, this time, the high commissioner has secure communications with London—something that was missing during the previous situation?
Lastly, the Foreign Secretary said that we were supplying non-lethal equipment to ECOMOG. If it requested lethal equipment—which it may well do—would the British Government supply it?

Mr. Cook: On the positioning of the two people to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, we understand that President Kabbah remains in Freetown. Mr. Penfold, our high commissioner in Sierra Leone, was withdrawn over Christmas with other British nationals and has since been in Britain. He recently returned to Sierra Leone, and he is currently in Conakry awaiting a flight to take him to Freetown. Once back in Freetown, he will have access to our high commission and to the communications that were always available there.
On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, we shall consider any such request. However, he will be aware that there is an embargo against Nigeria. Progress in meeting such a request must be balanced against progress within Nigeria on the democratic track, which, at some future time, we are ready to reward with a winding down of the embargo that was placed on the previous military junta.

Ms Diane Abbott: The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the great concern of the large Sierra Leonean community in

my constituency and across London about events in Sierra Leone and how grateful they are for the Government's humanitarian effort. He will also be aware that longer-term policy issues arise out of the civil war that has criss-crossed this region since independence. One of those issues is whether, in the future, the House should consider what could be done to regulate companies of mercenaries such as Sandline.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing her appreciation of the British role in Sierra Leone. We are not aware of any British mercenary involvement in the current conflict, but we shall obviously try to ensure that any such activity is within the bounds set by United Nations resolutions, which we shall seek to enforce if any mercenary activity is brought to our attention.
At their meeting in Abidjan at the end of December, the countries of the region called for the withdrawal of all external mercenary involvement in Sierra Leone. Those countries are suspicious that there is substantial mercenary involvement on the side of the rebels. It would be in the interests of the country and the region if that mercenary involvement were stopped.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that he is pursuing a negotiated settlement to this dispute, and is not putting international and British forces on one side of a civil war? Does he agree that the election of President Kabbah is under question by many Sierra Leoneans? Would it not be better to promote a settlement in which we work towards the election of a Government elected by the all the people of Sierra Leone under Commonwealth supervision?

Mr. Cook: We should remember that President Kabbah is the elected leader of the Government and the people of Sierra Leone. The rebel forces have a very robust approach to democracy and freedom of expression: they lop off the arms of anyone who disagrees with them. In those circumstances, I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's even-handed approach. We are committed to restoring the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone at some appropriate point. It will be necessary to negotiate a political settlement that provides for the demobilisation and demilitarisation of the rebel forces, but we must not be tricked into thinking that these are legitimate rebels fighting a civil war with any degree of popular support.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Foreign Office questions, the Foreign Secretary—perhaps inadvertently—gave an entirely wrong answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on the question of the return of Senator Pinochet to Chile. The Foreign Secretary said that Senator Pinochet could not be allowed to return to Chile without setting aside the rule of law. It has never been in dispute, and was expressly—

Madam Speaker: Order. I recognise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a distinguished Member of this House. However, he knows that this is an argument that he must have with the Government, and not by means of a point of order. He must find other methods through the Order Paper and through debate in this House to pursue this matter.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a wholly different point of order, of which I have given you prior notice, Madam Speaker. In column 631 of yesterday's Hansard, you will see that I made some critical comments of the former Paymaster General. The then Deputy Speaker in the Chair intervened and said:
We should remind ourselves that, unless there is a substantive motion before us, we should not criticise other Members of the House."—[Official Report, 18 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 631.]
If that rule were to be implemented in the strict way expressed by the Deputy Speaker, there would be no political debate. I suspect that the Deputy Speaker went

somewhat further than he may have intended. Perhaps, either on this or some subsequent occasion, you might care to clarify the position.

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order, and I have read the ruling of my Deputy to which he has drawn attention. There is a fine line to be drawn between criticism of a Member's political action and their personal conduct which was not crossed in the exchanges yesterday. I am satisfied that, following the remarks made about the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), it was appropriate for my Deputy to caution the House. I believe that it was a caution that Members should not reflect on the personal conduct of the former Paymaster General. As the House well knows, the personal conduct of hon. Members can be discussed only on a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms. This protection, which is afforded to all right hon. and hon. Members, is set out in the current edition of "Erskine May", pages 384-5. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for letting me put this on record.

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSE OF LORDS

Mrs. Margaret Beckett, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Straw, Dr. Jack Cunningham, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Mrs. Ann Taylor, Secretary Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Secretary Michael and Mr. Geoffrey Hoon presented a Bill to end membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage; to make related provision about disqualifications for voting at elections to, and for membership of, the House of Commons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 34].

Orders of the Day — Greater London Authority Bill

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

(Clauses 1 to 4 and Schedules 1 and 2)

Considered in Committee, pursuant to the Order [15 December].

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 1

THE AUTHORITY

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Eric Forth: I would like to take a brief opportunity to set out the reasons for my opposition to the clause, which stem from my reservations about how the Bill itself—and, therefore, the clause—came about. The Bill is the result of the use of the technique of referendum. I believe that the referendum is a dubious means of arriving at complex political decisions.
The decision—which, on the face of it, looked seductively simple, as does the clause—must be one of the more complex that we have encountered not just in this Parliament, but for a long time. The relevant question, however, was put to the people of London in a referendum. That in itself was bad enough, because, as I have always contended, it is always difficult to reduce a complex political question legitimately to a simple proposition that requires a simple yes or no answer. In this case, the crime was compounded because the Government failed to put to the people of London a question that would distinguish their desire for, on the one hand, a mayor as a component of the Greater London Authority and, on the other, an assembly. The clause is based on a false premise, because an invalid question was put to the people of London, so the answer that they gave was also invalid.
I am glad to say that one of my hon. Friends has introduced a private Member's Bill that will give us an opportunity to consider the matter, but a serious question that we should already have considered about referendums as a mechanism for political decision making concerns the turnout. As we all know, pathetically few people were sufficiently engaged by the question to take the trouble to vote in the referendum in London.
I have heard Ministers claiming that there is "overwhelming" support for the proposition adumbrated in the clause, but we know that only about one in three Londoners were sufficiently overwhelmed to bother to vote. If we are to have such abuse of the technique of referendum, we should quickly have a long-overdue look at the way in which the referendum is used as a mechanism for political decision making. I hope that we will not be further subjected to the claim that the people of London came flocking to endorse the proposition, because that is nonsense and will be seen as such.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that the referendum was held

on the same day as the London borough elections and that the turnout on that day was lower than in previous London borough elections?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point, which allows me to say, strictly in passing, that I am proud of the fact that my borough had the lowest yes vote of any borough in Greater London.
The clause encapsulates the basis of the whole Bill, which is extremely undesirable because it imposes a whole new layer of bureaucracy on the people of London. It has been said, and it will no doubt be said again as we continue our discussions, that the mayor and assembly will somehow be a benefit to the people of London. I have been in the political business long enough to be dubious about the proposition that the more layers of bureaucrats we have, the greater is the benefit to the people; but that is what is being argued.
We will have to spend a long time considering in detail the proposition that more bureaucrats and politicians will bring greater benefits to the people of London. Londoners already have elected borough councillors, Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament, all beavering away to give effect to their wishes and desires. Now they will have an elected mayor and assembly members.
I will not go into detail about the cost of the bureaucracy, buildings, salaries, expenses, special assistants and all the other nonsense, to say nothing of the travelling this and living that—I suspect that we may return to all that at greater length later—because the real point is not only the undesirability in principle of more politicians and bureaucrats, but the conflicts that will inevitably arise among all the different elected representatives of the people of London.
Conflicts are bound to develop as the powers of the mayor and the assembly develop, inevitably at the expense of the boroughs. I hope that that problem will come out as we consider the Bill, although I do not know how we are to resolve it, because if we agree to the clause, all the nonsenses in the other 250-odd clauses will follow as night follows day.
Ministers must give the Committee some idea of how the Bill will work to the benefit of the people of London, those for whom we are supposed to be legislating, when it contains a prescription for continuing and growing conflict at every level in the making and implementation of policy between the people elected, supposedly, to represent the people of London.

4 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall intervene on the right hon. Gentleman only once. How does he explain the logic of his position, unless he is arguing that it is better to keep the status quo under which Parliament and the Government of the whole country—irrespective of their majority in London—make decisions for London rather than those decisions being made by people chosen by Londoners, who may be argued to have a more local interest?
Is not the logic of what the right hon. Gentleman says that there should be only one Government in Britain at all levels of decision making? Yet, everywhere else in Britain there are tiers of government. He used to represent a


constituency in Worcestershire where there are parish, district and county councils. In Scotland, there are other tiers of government. Is he arguing that we should have only one tier of elected representatives for all the United Kingdom?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but the direct answer is no, although I would disagree vehemently with holding up the administration of our counties as some sort of model. The hon. Gentleman's question is perfectly valid, but I challenge his assumption that London is a political entity that merits the sort of representation that the Bill will impose on it. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman because I am comfortable with the status quo, as I believe that the boroughs legitimately represent the peoples of London in all their diversity. I am glad to see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who shares the borough of Bromley with me.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: And me.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) shares it too—the borough of Bromley is fully represented in the Chamber. One reason why the good folk of Bromley were the least enthusiastic about the Bill is that they feel absolutely no commonality of interest with people not just in central London, but with the people in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) and for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). I say nothing detrimental about those constituencies or their boroughs, but my hon. Friends may agree that the common interests that the people of those area share with Bromley are, to say the least, minimal.
The core of the difficulty with the Bill is that it seeks to treat the length, breadth, might and greatness of London as if the capital were one simple-minded political entity that can be legitimately represented by an assembly. I challenge that assumption; it was wrong from the start. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) posed a legitimate question, but I am content with the status quo, and I believe that added bureaucracy will be unnecessary and costly, and will give rise to conflicts that could damage the interests of Londoners in all their diversity. Let me put it beyond all doubt that I am totally against clause 1, which is misconceived and wrongly based, and which will damage the people of London.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Committee stage begins a long process that will pass from the full light of the Chamber to the slightly less full light of the Committee Rooms upstairs, where the hours will be longer and the labours no less hard. The Liberal Democrats support clause 1, but I wish to raise one matter arising from what the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions said on Second Reading when we explored the nature of the beast to come.
As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has clearly grasped, clause 1 sets up sets up the authority, with the words:
There shall be an authority for Greater London".
On 14 December, I sought to get out of the Secretary of State whether that authority was equivalent to regional government. It had started off being described as such,

but then it became city government and local government. I thought that the issue was worth pursuing and the right hon. Gentleman's answer is worth repeating. He said:
It is in between, in a way".—[Official Report, 14 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 624.]
That comment lends itself to further exploration.
One could argue validly, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has done, that Greater London is not an entity and should not have countywide or citywide government. However, some of us have accepted that the development of metropolitan London with a green belt around it, makes Greater London a natural, large metropolitan community. One sees that that is the case when one flies into London.
Obviously, there is a greater south-east region. However, if the Government are committed to regional government, as the Secretary of State and Ministers say that they are, what is the region for which they envisage that we will get such government as it affects London? If it is to be Greater London—some people may not like that—and we are to have a London development agency, which is meant to be the embryo for regional government, as are such agencies in the rest of the country, why are we not to have regional government? It could be developed later and its powers could be varied, but why can we not say honestly and openly now, "This is regional government"?
Of course, London is different from other regions, such as the west midlands, which is not one place—Birmingham is represented by one authority, Coventry is next door and so forth. London is one place, but it is a city state-type region. Many capital cities have their own governments, for example, Washington and Canberra. They are a sort of variation on a theme—another tier of government above local government.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that London is to be the region that the Government will recognise for regional government purposes and that we are committed to having such government. It is a serious matter and his colleagues on the Labour Benches will be interested to hear the answer. We Liberal Democrats would support that idea. If that is to be the case, why not say so now? Why not say that the assembly is the embryo—the starting point of the Greater London regional authority, which will provide London with regional government—and get on with the job?
Finally, if that is the case, I accept that how one combines citywide and regional government is an issue. I will not argue that London should be parallel with and similar to the other English regions. I do not think that it should be for reasons that are self-evident. My hon. Friends and I are clear that Greater London requires government to be delivered by an authority above borough level. We disagree with the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and we associate ourselves with those expressed by the great majority of, Londoners.

Mr. Forth: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the view in favour is not held by the great majority, but all the opinion polls show that the great majority of Londoners want a democratic regional tier of government to be re-established. They would prefer elected representatives to



make decisions about their city rather than civil servants. On that basis, we believe that we must start by saying that we will have a greater regional authority.

Mr. Forth: I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman continues to peddle that nonsense. If Londoners support that idea, as he claims, why did they not bother to turn out and cast a vote when given the opportunity to do so in the referendum? It is one thing to ask questions in an opinion poll and, if we are to run the country by opinion polls, I will offer the deal that I always offer on such occasions to any colleague: can we have a binding poll on the return of capital punishment? If the hon. Gentleman intends to rest his case on that argument, I have no doubt that he will sign up wholeheartedly to such a poll.

Mr. Hughes: I will not be distracted by an opinion poll on capital punishment, except to say that there are differences between the way in which one settles constitutional and ethical issues—they are always entirely different.
I would argue—as a Scot, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst should understand this—that it is just as much the settled will of the people of Greater London that there should be Londonwide democratic government as it is the settled will of the people of Scotland that there should be a Parliament in Scotland. Since the Greater London council was abolished, whatever the criticisms of the GLC era—or, in smaller boundaries, of the London county council before that—whenever asked, most of the people of London have said that they want such government. I have never seen an opinion poll that has not shown that. Of course, a majority of Londoners did not go to the polling booths for the local election day referendum, but Conservatives have often been elected in local elections with small votes on small turnouts of 20 or 30 per cent. The Government rightly want to increase turnout, as we do.
One reason why there was not a massive turnout was that it was obvious from opinion polling that there would be an overwhelming yes vote. With the best will in the world, I pay tribute to the Minister. The Secretary of State turned out to play football at Wembley—not a pretty sight but he was there. I made an effort in the campaign, appearing on buses with Ministers and others. There was even a song produced. It did not take off, but we tried to get some interest going. It was so obvious that people wanted London government back that many thought that they did not need to turn out. If it had been a needle match, the number of people voting would have risen.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst argued that there was not great enthusiasm in Bromley. That may be true; Bromley is a place of lesser enthusiasm than some parts of the country. Even in his borough, the majority of those who cast votes voted in favour. Even though he is in the borough of the lukewarm, the lukewarm were in favour of Greater London.
I hope that the Minister accepts that this is a probing debate about regional government, which we favour. Why cannot London have it, and have it this year?

Mr. John Horam: I rise to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and

Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). We have two concerns. First, as he rightly noted, we are on the outer fringe of London. The position is worse than he proclaimed, because my constituents in Orpington would rather be in Kent, as they were historically, than in Greater London. Sadly, they were moved by a Conservative Government.

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The hon. Gentleman was not a Conservative then.

Mr. Horam: That is as may be, but, happily, I opposed the creation of the GLC and was proved to be right because it was later abolished by a Conservative Government.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, we are concerned about the level of bureaucracy. While I admit that the representatives will be democratically elected, there will be more councillors, more bodies and all the spin-offs that will flow from that fact. It is a retrograde step, and typical of the Government, both in respect of London and of the proposals for devolution, that they have come up with dense, complicated and expensive conclusions and proposals.
Equally, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, it is fair to say that there was strong support for a voice for London. All opinion polls suggested that people were sorry that at various times, such as when bidding for the Olympic games, there was not a person or body to stand up and support a case for London in the wider scheme of things. That is one reason why people supported a new voice for London when it was put to them in the referendum in the whole Greater London area, although they did not vote for the re-creation of the old Greater London authority.
There was a way through the dilemma. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey would agree that in a sense, the case for a voice for London is an inner London case that is at its strongest in the sort of area that he represents, where there are genuine problems with education, health, transport and living standards that should be tackled on a broader basis than is possible under the arrangements that were created long ago by a Conservative Government.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: I accept that the further out one goes, the more one sees that areas, such as the one he represents, that historically have belonged to the counties of Surrey and Kent feel less a part of Greater London. When the Committee considers voting systems, some of us will argue that we should try to group areas together in natural communities, because the people of Kent in London have a view that naturally differs from that of the people of Surrey in London.

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my point. There is a solution to the problem which is much simpler than the one the Government have proposed: it is to group together some of the inner London boroughs, perhaps in a new borough—a single borough, without two or three tiers—covering Westminster, Kensington, parts of Southwark and Lambeth and so on. It would be a central London borough similar to what is found in Paris,


where there is a Paris municipal authority covering not the whole of Paris as we know it, but an area that is roughly enclosed by the peripherique and which is but a small part of the total urban area of Paris. That municipal authority deals successfully with the problems of central Paris; similarly, with no extra councillors—indeed, with a reduction in the number of local authorities, because several would have been combined into one—we could have a body that could speak for London and deal with the problems of inner London.

Mr. Geraint Davies: I speak as a former leader of Croydon council. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the strategic issues of the environment, the economy and an integrated transport system for London must embrace outer London as well as inner London? The idea of having a separately defined inner London is obviously ridiculous.

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me, because, as has already been said, the issues to which he refers go well beyond the boundaries of Greater London. About 17,000 people a day commute into the city from my constituency, and many pass through Orpington as they come from Sevenoaks and beyond, so it is clear that we have to consider an area greater than that which will be covered by the Greater London authority. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), a former Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment, described as a geographical question, involving geographical balance.
Some issues affecting London go far wider than the Greater London authority area—for example, transport issues affecting road and rail networks go right to the coast—whereas questions of health and education are far narrower, with inner London issues differing from those of Bromley, Uxbridge and so on. The Government have had to solve that problem. Sadly, they have not come up with a simple effective solution, but one that is overcomplicated, over-expensive and messy.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: The one undisputed fact is that, in the referendum, the majority either said no, or expressed no opinion. That cannot be ignored.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Is it not true that, under the previous Administration, in ballots on whether schools should opt out, the Conservatives had a rule that a vote not cast was a yes vote? Using that method, there was an overwhelming majority in favour of having a Greater London authority.

Mr. Ottaway: I have absolutely no idea whether the hon. Gentleman is right or wrong on that point.
One of the interesting features of having taken all the stages of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill on the Floor of the House, and of having had the referendum since then, is that, now that we have reached the debate on the real thing, many of the arguments—those on the fundamental principles—already feel rather well rehearsed. Although a huge amount of the detail in the Bill before us will be debated upstairs in Standing Committee, certain key facts have emerged.
First, it has now been accepted by the Conservative party and by the Government that the Conservatives were right to abolish the Greater London council. We make no

apology for having done so: it was in our 1983 manifesto. The current Government, in their determination not to return to the bad old ways of the GLC, have belatedly recognised that we were right and that Labour's opposition at the time was misconceived. The Government have added that to the long list of matters on which they have changed their mind. As John Maynard Keynes, whose views appear to be gaining ascendancy in the Labour party, said:
When the circumstances change, my opinion changes.
Many good reasons have been given for abolishing the GLC: it was bloated, over-bureaucratic, inefficient, incompetent and used as a regional power base for party politics. Its management of London's transport was so hopeless that we had to take that power away from the GLC. Its leaders called for the abolition of the monarchy and its hostility to business was an embarrassment.

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman's statement that abolition of the GLC was in the Conservative manifesto is found to be incorrect—I believe that it was not a manifesto commitment—will he make a formal apology for misleading the Committee?

Mr. Ottaway: If I am not correct, I shall withdraw my remark—that goes without saying.
It was no surprise that London's economy took off shortly after the abolition of the GLC, and has been sustained ever since. However, with hindsight, there is possibly another reason why abolishing the GLC was the right thing to do.
London is a city of villages. All of its boroughs have a different complexion. Historic Greenwich, with its cultural centres, is very different from the Manhattan skyline of Croydon, with its focus on the business community. Both areas have their problems—deprivation, unemployment and poor services—but each has its strong points, and its own identity and approach. That local identity is represented by the boroughs.
In place of the GLC, the London boroughs, as unitary authorities, have been strengthened. In all honesty, some boroughs are better run than others. However, there is no doubt that every borough is run better than it was run under the old GLC regime. The reason is clear: each borough has its own notion of its community's aims and objectives. The parameters for councillors and officers are clearly defined: it is their patch and they know how to get on with it.
That is why London is the greatest city on earth. One could not find another city that has such a rich heritage and so wide a variety of cultures. One could not hope to find another capital that is so full of good humour, civilisation and energy. London is an economic powerhouse, an artistic showcase and, above all, an incredibly creative, tolerant and free-spirited town in which to live.
The Conservatives are the first to recognise that the world has moved on since 1986. It is a fast-moving, media-driven world and we are the first to acknowledge that we have developed our view about the need for co-ordination in London. However, we believe in a much lighter touch than do the Government or the Liberal Democrats, who take an even more heavy-handed approach. On Second Reading, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and


Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), described our vision for London as "thin gruel". Despite the way in which he made that remark, I suggest that there is nothing wrong with thin gruel—indeed, the hon. Gentleman will find it on the menu of most breakfast emporiums because it is healthy.
We believe that our approach and our vision for London, involving a lighter touch and the mayor co-ordinating the London boroughs, is far more in tune with what London needs. To that extent, the ultimate challenge for the mayor will lie in his ability to co-ordinate the London boroughs. That relationship with the London boroughs is our greatest concern, and it is a factor that we shall address in subsequent amendments. We believe in an authority in which the mayor is able to input London's needs at Cabinet level and to sell London internationally. However, we are concerned that the mayor is not being given any real freedom to manoeuvre.
The Secretary of State retains ultimate powers of override in every key area. The all-embracing power of clause 27 allows the Secretary of State to prevent the mayor from doing anything he wants. A complete straitjacket of reserve powers governs policy and action. Another major concern is that the mayor and his office will set up a ministerial rather than a local government model. The mayor will not have to disclose the material that is used to brief him when making decisions, nor will he have to give evidence to the assembly.
The mayor will have great patronage through his appointment to various functional bodies and sway over planning and development issues. However, his decisions will not necessarily be debated in public, be open to scrutiny or subject to clear, open and independent financial and legal advice as would occur under the normal local government regime that every council operates. None the less, we support the principle of the mayor, and it logically follows that we support the principle of an authority. We have many suggestions to make about the conduct of the authority and the way in which that can be approved. However, so that the debate can develop we accept that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Raynsford: The purpose of the clause is simple and straightforward: it establishes the Greater London authority and, in doing so, rectifies an historic injustice done to London in 1986.
The Bill restores a democratic, citywide government to London, so the people of London will once again be able to elect their own authority—their mayor and their assembly—to represent them. They will no longer be dependent on the wishes of Cabinet Ministers, shadowy quangos, joint boards and other unaccountable bodies, which, for the past 13 years, have ultimately made the key decisions about the future of our capital city.
The Bill also provides for the authority to have the functions that are transferred to, conferred on or imposed on the authority by this Bill or any other.
The Government were elected on a promise to create a new authority for London. We set out our proposals on how we would honour that promise in our White Paper in March last year. We submitted that White Paper to the people of London in a referendum last May and they

voted yes by a majority of 72 per cent. The Bill gives effect to the proposals set out in the White Paper endorsed by the people of London.
Some hon. Members have revealed that they still hanker after life in the past. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) clearly does not want to believe what has happened in 1997 and 1998. I know that it is painful for him, but the world moves on. He is no longer part of a large majority on the Government Benches; he is in opposition. The people of London voted overwhelmingly for Labour Members in the 1997 general election.

Mr. Forth: No they didn't.

Mr. Raynsford: They did. They voted for 57 Labour Members and only 11 Conservatives in 1997. That was a decisive victory for the Labour party.

Mr. John Randall: Does the Minister recall that, a year after the abolition of the Greater London council, 57 Conservative Members were returned in London?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman could not have made my case better. It is a measure of how the people of London have changed their view about who should represent them in Parliament that we now have an overwhelming majority of Labour Members. The fact that the people of London are keen to have their own citywide authority again is demonstrated by the fact that such a large majority of them voted in the referendum in Bromley, in Hillingdon and in every other London borough. Whatever the wishes of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, his electors gave a majority vote to our proposals.
Listening to the right hon. Gentleman, I felt sympathetic to his proposition that there should be fewer politicians. We are giving effect to that. We are creating a small, streamlined authority consisting of a mayor and 25 assembly members for a city of 7 million people. One will not find a more streamlined, cost-effective, democratic assembly anywhere in the world. This is a model of non-bureaucratic administration.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for his sympathy, which I shall cherish for a long time to come. How can he argue that there will be fewer politicians in London as a result of the Bill? Fewer than how many? Today, we know how many politicians are being carried on our shoulders and are spending our taxes. Surely the Minister must accept that if the measure is passed, there will be more politicians and bureaucrats in London. How can he conclude otherwise?

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman obviously cannot remember the size of the GLC, which he so disliked. We are proposing an authority that is approximately a quarter of the size of the GLC. As I have stressed to him, this will be the smallest, most streamlined authority of any major city in the world. It will be an example of good, efficient administration, not a bureaucratic organisation.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has gone back over ground that we covered on Second Reading. He would like to use


the term "regional" to describe the body that we are creating, but that is not appropriate. As the capital city of our country, London is unique and it requires a unique solution. It is going to have a unique solution—a citywide authority. Regions outside London will require their own model. The hon. Gentleman recognised that there was a difference between the kind of pattern appropriate in a densely occupied city with a large population and that which applies in other regions which are a mixture of rural and urban areas.
4.30 pm
The Government are committed to moving towards directly elected regional government, where there is popular support for it. The creation of voluntary regional chambers in the regions outside London is a first step in that direction, but the proposals in the Bill are not intended to be a template for regional patterns of government elsewhere. They are intended to meet the specific needs of London for effective government in London.
We are trying to respond to the needs of London. The legislation sets out a new form of governance which recognises the need for a strategic overview in the design and implementation of policies which will affect the lives of more than 7 million people. It will be a Greater London authority, not a regional authority.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I was originally going to intervene on the Minister to say that in the Chamber there is no better example of moving on than the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who started life as a young communist and has ended up as a right-wing Tory. The right hon. Gentleman should know about moving on.
I understand what the Minister is saying. My colleagues and I do not dissent from the view that London is entirely different because it is a metropolitan area and a capital city. I am trying to discover where the Government are putting it in the scheme of English constitutional reform. Does the fact that London is different mean that there will not be regional government for London in addition to the citywide government being created by the Bill? If we are to have a unique form of government, the Government should be honest and say as much, and not introduce all the accoutrements of local government such as the local government boundary commission and local government rules. Let us call it citywide government or unique citywide Londonwide government; let us rejoice in its uniqueness and capital city pre-eminence, but please do not let us call it local government when it is really no such thing.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is tilting at windmills. We have not called it local government. He heard me say that we are proposing a unique form of governance for a unique city. We are creating a new form of citywide government for our capital city. I hope that we have agreement on that. I shall not be tempted into a discussion of the ramifications of regional government because that would take a long time and take us far from the matters in hand—

Mr. Hughes: It is because the Minister has no ideas.

Mr. Raynsford: I do indeed have all sorts of ideas, but I shall not debate them with the hon. Gentleman this afternoon.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I have just been to check on this contentious issue with the Library, and I

think that I might be able to enlighten the Committee. The Library assures me that London is one of the nine regions in England designated under NUTS—a very appropriate expression. NUTS stands for the nomenclature of units of territorial statistics, as designated by—guess who?—our old friend the European Union. In order to organise us to suit its affairs, the EU has designated the United Kingdom as comprising 12 regions—Scotland, Wales, Ireland, London and eight others—so London is a region. Basically, all this is done at the insistence of the EU. London and the rest of us are being slotted in according to the EU' s designation, but the fact remains that London is a region.

Mr. Raynsford: Hearing the hon. Lady talking about NUTS tempts me to go way beyond the subject in hand. I assure her that we are setting in place a system of citywide government for London which is, for certain purposes, treated as a region. However, unlike any other region in the United Kingdom, it is a uniquely urban area. It is not the mixture of urban and rural areas covering a much larger geographical area, which is the characteristic of the other regions. The hon. Lady will accept that there are differences.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) seemed to hark back not just to 1986, when the GLC was abolished, but to 1888 when the London county council was established. He seemed to be arguing the case for an inner London authority, but not an authority covering the rest of London. I have to tell him that the world has moved on a great deal since 1888. He also raised the interesting question of whether there should be a new constituency. I am happy to be able to tell the Committee that the Government have accepted the recommendations of the Local Government Commission on the constituencies that will be adopted for the Greater London assembly elections. Those constituencies—14 in total—will be as recommended by the commission. There will, therefore, be new constituencies, and members of the assembly will be elected in part from those constituencies. The other 11 members will be elected from the lists. We shall discuss that subject in later debates.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), speaking as official spokesman for the Opposition, once again had difficulty with the referendum. Whatever conclusions he draws about how people who did not vote might have voted, in this country, we treat election results on the basis of those people who voted, and of those people who voted, 72 per cent. voted in favour of our proposition. By any count, that was a large and decisive majority. I make no apology whatever for repeating the fact that we are acting on the basis of the support of the people of London.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South made no apology for the abolition of the Greater London council. That is curious because, whereas our position is strongly endorsed by the people of London, the former Conservative Government abolished the GLC in the face of the obvious overwhelming hostility of the people of London, who wanted their own democratic citywide authority. That Government left London, alone of all major cities in the world, with no one to speak for it—


with no one representing its interests in the United Kingdom or overseas. That situation is a problem, which we are now remedying.

Mr. Ottaway: But the Minister will recognise that, in his Green Paper, "New Leadership for London", he says:
This is not an exercise in bringing back the Greater London Council".

Mr. Raynsford: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. We know that the world moves on, and we are devising new models, appropriate to our period. That does not mean that we believe that the previous Government were right to abolish the GLC; it was a mistake. It was an affront to democracy in London, and we are remedying that, but we are devising a new model of governance appropriate for the 21st century instead of harking back—as the hon. Member for Orpington does—to models of governance created in the 19th century.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South spoke about limitations on the mayor's powers. He dug up some hoary old chestnuts about clause 27. Before we reach that clause, I should tell him that it is part of a slice of the Bill that relates to the mayor's overall powers. It follows clause 25, which gives the mayor wide-ranging powers. Clause 27 contains limitations specifically to protect the interests of London boroughs. Everything that the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party have said suggests to me that they support the London boroughs, and would not want the mayor to have powers to do things that the London boroughs are expressly charged with doing. That is the purpose of clause 27, and anyone who reads it carefully—as critics who have accused us of unreasonably limiting the mayor's power should—will see that the mayor's powers are extensive, but that they are limited in respect of specific functions which should be discharged either by the boroughs or by other authorities. The aim is to avoid duplication.
I also put it to the hon. Member for Croydon, South—he will find this an uncomfortable fact, which we shall hear more often in these debates—that the argument about our limiting the mayor's power is pretty rich coming from the Conservatives. When, in 1962, the Conservative party—the hon. Gentleman was probably a member of that party at the time, unlike the hon. Member for Orpington—introduced the Bill that became the London Government Act 1963, which created the Greater London council, it contained 94 clauses, so it was about a third of the length of the Bill before us, but it contained 140 references to the powers of the Secretary of State and Ministers to control that authority. That is even more references than there are in our Bill. The record of that Government will be exposed if ever the hon. Member for Croydon, South or his colleagues try to accuse us of unreasonably restricting the power of the Greater London authority.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because we are on the first clause of a long furrow. I am in an especially strong position to know that,

in 1962, the Minister was a Minister, not a Secretary of State. Unintentionally, the Minister has misled the Committee.

Mr. Raynsford: I hope that I made it clear that the 140 references were to powers available to Ministers and Secretaries of State. There were 123 references to the powers of the Minister and 17 to the powers of the Secretary of State. We have done our research carefully. The relevant Minister was a Minister, and he made a very interesting point, on which the right hon. Gentleman may want to ponder. In response to Opposition criticism of reserve powers, the Minister said:
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has reserve powers, but, like reserve powers in other fields, they are for use only in the last resort."—[Official Report, 10 December 1962; Vol. 669, c. 54.]
That argument played well in 1962. We shall see how it plays in 1999.
Clause 1 gives effect to a manifesto commitment. It creates the Greater London authority. It is short, simple and straightforward. It is hugely important for the people of London, and I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

MEMBERSHIP OF THE AUTHORITY AND THE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in clause 2, page 1, line 15, after 'of, insert 'Greater'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 17, in clause 2, page 2, line 1, after 'the', insert 'Greater'.

Mr. Hughes: Although this will be a relatively short debate, it raises an issue about which people ask a very simple question. If we are setting up under the Greater London Authority Bill the Greater London authority, why do we not call the mayor the Greater London mayor and the assembly the Greater London assembly? That is not just a technical question. The logic behind the debate on clause 1 stand part was that we are creating unique, citywide Greater London government. But, there is an historical legacy of a problem of description and understanding.
I should like to put on the record that I was treated by the Lord Mayor of London to a very nice lunch. He invited members of all parties to the Mansion house following his election. We all happily responded and discussed matters with him.
Over recent years, the City of London has argued very strongly for its continuing existence. Over the past 10 years, I think that it has persuaded virtually all hon. Members that it is effectively a business district, like those in Melbourne, Sydney and the like, and that, although it is an anomalous local authority, it nevertheless ought to continue to exist. I and my hon. Friends accept that.
The City has accepted, however, that it must revamp its structures to create modernised city government. It has this very year presented to Parliament a Bill in order to do so, which we shall debate another time.


My hon. Friends and I want the Bill to go further than the City has proposed, although at least it will extend the franchise beyond the 5,000 people who live in the City and are registered to vote.
Just to show how anomalous the situation is—I shall not elaborate—I am entitled to vote in the City because I am still a member of the chambers in the Temple from which I practised as a barrister before I was elected. As a tenant of those chambers, which is outside the City and a separate microcosm of government, I can elect ward councillors who govern the Temple.

Mr. Raynsford: That is absurd.

Mr. Hughes: Indeed. Such an anomaly needs to be considered.
There are greater anomalies, too. Traditionally, although there has been no legal bar to women being promoted to the highest office, it has somehow not happened very often. There are other issues, such as recognising the right to participate of all who work in the City, from the big firms to the small traders—newsagents and so on.
4.45 pm
The City needs to reform its structures, which it has started to do. I pay tribute to the present leader of the City council, Judith Mayhew, and her predecessor, who with their colleagues have started that process.
If one went round the world and asked people about London, the pictures that would come to mind are not images of new Britannia and rule Britannia, but the old images. They include, I am happy to say, Tower bridge, half of which is in my constituency, and the Tower of London, St. Paul's cathedral, and the Lord Mayor of London.
London has two cities. One of the representatives of the other city is present in the Chamber with us—the City of Westminster, where we sit. It has been argued that London should have three cities, and that Southwark, the other great early part of London, should be recognised. I am serious about that, and I hope that before long Southwark will be given city status too.
However, those are local government cities. The Cities of London and of Westminster have lord mayors, whereas the rest of the boroughs, including Southwark at present, have mayors. If the office of Lord Mayor of London is to continue—the City has no reason to change that, and there would be no logic to doing so—there will obviously be confusion from next year between the Lord Mayor of London and the mayor of London.
Around the country, people do not usually know whether someone is a lord mayor or a mayor. The mayors of Southwark are often called lord mayors, but they are not. People do not remember which cities and local authorities have mayors, and which have lord mayors. We know that there is to be an election for a mayor in London. Why do we not call the new postholder the mayor of Greater London? That would avoid confusion with the Lord Mayor of London, who will continue to be elected by the City—by more modern democratic procedures, one hopes. The title that I propose for the new mayor would make it clear that that person spoke on behalf of Greater London.
As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) observed, there will be a difference between the mayor of London, under my proposal, and the mayor of Paris, for example. The mayor of Paris is the mayor not of greater Paris, but of the inner part of Paris, whereas the new London mayor will be the mayor of the area covered by the Euro-region, the citywide area, the 33 local authorities of Greater London. It would be no bad thing to change the name, avoid confusion and give the office holder a correct job description.

Mr. John McDonnell: As the hon. Gentleman raised the matter of the City Corporation, I did not want to miss the opportunity of passing a message back. One way of avoiding confusion would be to abolish the City Corporation. The proposals for reform promoted by the City Corporation are so feeble that they require extensive redrafting before they will satisfy the House.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman properly raises two issues. The first is whether the City of London should be abolished as a local authority area. I have been persuaded that it should stay.
On the second point, I join the hon. Gentleman. I am not satisfied that the proposals represent a reform of the City structures that would make it a democratically elected local authority for a business district. The City has begun that process, but it has been timid, and I want it to be braver. I hope that when the House deals with the matter, we will say that and the City will accept it. We may have a battle to persuade the City to withdraw its proposals and produce others. I share the hon. Gentleman's view, and I hope that we can agree in future.
The logic of the amendments extends to the assembly. The Government rejoice in the fact that some members of the assembly will have constituency interests. The Minister for London and Construction rightly announced today that the Government have accepted the recommendations of the boundary commissioners. Had he announced that the Government had not accepted those recommendations, there would have been trouble. We shall return to the fact that the Bill gives great powers to the Secretary of State, including the power to draw the boundaries. We think that that power should be taken away from Secretaries of State and given to independent boundary commissions. There is a top-up list of members who will represent London as a whole, and the logic is that they represent Greater London, not simply part of London. Therefore, there is a strong case for the name to be changed so that they and the assembly have an accurate job description.

Sir Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Lord Mayors of the cities of London and Westminster. We are to create a mayor of London who, he says, should be called the mayor of Greater London. Is it not slightly demeaning that the mayor of this new, quasi-regional authority, representing the greatest city in the world, should have as its head, only a mayor, not a lord mayor?

Mr. Hughes: We are getting into an interesting constitutional corner here. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. In 1999, on the eve of a new millennium, to call people in high office lords all the time is a bit out-dated. We have moved on. I am serious


about that. We need a less deferential society where the senior citizen, whether elected directly or indirectly, is the mayor. We should get rid of the word lord from the title of Lord Mayor, not just in London but around the country. We have an unusual conjunction. The cities of London and Westminster both have lord mayors, so the obvious way forward is to make this other person the mayor of Greater London.
My last point, which the hon. Gentleman or someone else might have intervened to make, is a technical, "I am cleverer than you", point. It could be argued that, as there is no London assembly, we do not need to call the assembly the Greater London assembly to differentiate it.
The Minister for London and Construction has no doubt been briefed to reply. [Interruption.] I understand that the Minister for Transport in London is to respond. I rejoice at the breadth and variety of the ministerial team, and the Whip, who will never be forgotten.
I should like the Minister to do what I have seen her do once before in the House, which is to stand up, put aside her briefing notes, speak from the heart and use her intellectual powers to respond to the proposition, the case for which is so overwhelming that I hope that she will accept it. I make it quietly, generously and, I hope, persuasively. Let us have a mayor of Greater London and a Greater London assembly, and leave the cities to have their lord mayors for us long as that title remains unreformed.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): If I do not respond from my heart, it is not because the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has not played his usual emotive cards.
I join the hon. Gentleman, as do the Government, in welcoming the moves that the City is making in democratising its institutions. I am second to none in my admiration for Judith Mayhew, who is not only a remarkable woman but is doing a remarkably effective job where she is.
There may be confusion between the title of mayor of London and Lord Mayor of London for visitors to these islands. It has been my experience that, when such visitors refer to the Lord Mayor of London, they inevitably presuppose that his name is Dick Whittington and that he is accompanied everywhere that he goes by a black cat.
Inasmuch as the Lord Mayor presents a glorious figurehead, there is an enormous benefit to the City of London. We are none of us in any doubt about the importance of the City of London, as one of the most dynamic financial centres in the world, to the economy of these islands. But there is no relationship whatever between the job of lord mayor and what we are proposing by way of a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly for London.
I was somewhat disappointed that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey harked back to previous debates. As my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction has already had occasion to say, ours is the only major capital city in the world that does not have an elected authority.
Our proposals—I am delighted to blight the hopes of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—were supported by a majority of those who

voted in the referendum, in every London borough, including his own. They will provide the people of London with what we promised in our manifesto and what they voted for—a directly elected mayor of London and a London assembly.
We are in the process of modernising the government of the capital and giving power to the people of London, and they are most certainly not fools. They know what they voted for and what we mean by "mayor of London" and "London assembly"; they know what "London" means. They are not concerned with labels, but with whether the Greater London authority will improve London's transport, enhance the capital's prosperity and make London a safer, healthier place in which to work and live.
The people of London are also concerned about whether the GLA will have the powers to achieve those objectives. I do not believe that any useful purpose—

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but her arguments are going a little wide of the amendment, which is simply about the title of mayor. Her arguments seem to be more relevant to our previous debate.

Ms Jackson: I am grateful for your advice, Sir Alan.
Central to my argument is the belief that no purpose would be served by—indeed, there is no justification for—changing the titles of either the mayor of London or the London assembly. In the circumstances, I ask the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Tom Brake: I am afraid that I am not entirely happy with the Minister's response and therefore stress again the importance of amendments Nos. 16 and 17. As well as clarifying the difference between mayor and lord mayor, the amendments would ensure that there is no doubt that the mayor and the assembly will represent not only the interests of inner-city areas, but suburban London boroughs and suburban London constituencies such as mine.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) may not want his constituency to be part of a Greater London construct; I want my constituency to be part of that, and so do my constituents. A few weeks ago, I conducted a survey of rail commuters in the constituency. My constituents commute in their thousands up to Victoria or London Bridge stations and they want the mayor and the assembly to take as much account of their transport and other needs as the needs of residents in inner-city areas such as Southwark or Islington.
Making it crystal clear that the mayor is the mayor of Greater London and the London assembly is the Greater London assembly would reassure my constituents that their interests will not be forgotten and that their concerns—about deteriorating train services, for example—will not be sidelined by other, equally pressing, inner-city problems. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will consider the amendments a little more favourably.

Ms Jackson: I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that the Greater London authority will comprise the mayor and the


London assembly. I do not believe that the people of London are incapable of understanding what is meant by "mayor of London" or "the assembly". His fear that the concerns of his constituents, or those of the constituents of any hon. Member representing a London constituency, will be sidelined has been answered by our proposals in respect of the constituencies. The constituencies will have directly elected representatives and the parties' percentage of the vote will be reflected in the 11 members who will be elected to the assembly by the list system.
I return the point that I made earlier, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) did not afford it the weight that it carries: the people of London are not fools. They have been actively campaigning for the type of government which we made it abundantly clear we would give them. Hopefully, we are in the process of delivering that. They are not confused about what is meant by the "mayor of London" or the "assembly". I trust that, having heard me repeat it, the hon. Gentleman will agree with my previous request to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that the amendment be withdrawn.

5 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes: It was worth raising this issue, and 1 heard what the Minister said in both her brief answers. There is no confusion at the moment because those people do not yet exist. They will exist only from May next year. From that date, a lord mayor may be visiting one country while the mayor of London visits another.
I understand that the Government have drafted the Bill and do not want to concede this point, and I was not expecting an immediate concession. I am generous and understand how these things work, so I shall allow the Government time to reflect on this matter.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait a long time.

Mr. Hughes: That was a provocative remark. The Labour party is often slow to reach the right decision. I have learnt that over many years. I have waited a long time for realisation about the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and constitutional reform. We know that with Labour we wait a long time. People in the health service are waiting a long time, too. I shall not stray too far from the subject, Sir Alan, but the Minister tempted me to do so.
I hope that the Government will reflect on this matter in the time that it takes us to complete the Committee stage. We may return to it later, but in the interim I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in clause 2, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
'(aa) the Deputy Mayor'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 61, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, after 'Mayor', insert ', the Deputy Mayor'.
No. 62, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, after 'Mayor', insert ', the Deputy Mayor'.
No. 63, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, after 'Mayor', insert 'and Deputy Mayor'.
No. 64, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, after 'Mayor', insert `, the Deputy Mayor'.

Mr. Ottaway: It is important that the role of deputy mayor be more clearly defined and that it be independent of the assembly. The deputy mayor should not be a member of the assembly and a running mate of the mayor, elected on the same ticket. Clause 41 makes it clear that the deputy mayor has a significant role to play in the life of the authority, and that is repeated throughout the Bill. The Bill provides that he or she will be appointed by the mayor from the ranks of the assembly. That muddies the waters.
One of the more interesting experiments being conducted under the Bill is that, for the first time in the United Kingdom, the powers of the Executive are separated from those of the legislature. That is a huge change in our constitution and a principle that deserves the closest possible scrutiny. The separation of powers must be a true separation and be properly defined.
Elections will take place and party candidates for the assembly will campaign on their own manifesto, which may differ in many respects from that of the mayor. The mayor will have his mandate and policies, and the power to implement them. The assembly's role is to scrutinise the exercise of that power and, to the limited extent permitted under the Bill, to support the mayor or exercise a check on matters with which it disagrees. Those checks and balances are an essential ingredient of the separation of powers.
We, and constitutionists throughout the country, will watch closely to see how the division of power works. We shall want to see whether such a model may be more widely introduced. It is extremely important for that reason alone. However, the provisions of clause 41—that the deputy mayor will be chosen from the ranks of the assembly—muddy the water and put the deputy mayor in a position of fundamental conflict. On the one hand, he will be obliged to scrutinise the mayor's activities and, on the other, he will be expected to be loyal to the mayor in the performance of his executive powers. He cannot be expected to perform an executive function while turning around and assessing or commenting on his own performance.
I anticipate that the Minister will say that the position of deputy mayor will be no different from his position as a Minister in the House of Commons. However, there is all the difference in the world. The Minister's boss is the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister appoints him, and he reports to the Prime Minister through his Secretary of State. The Minister was elected on the same manifesto as the Prime Minister. His mandate is no lesser or greater than the Prime Minister's, and the Prime Minister derives his authority not only from his party, but from the House. Under the strict constitutional definition of the post of Prime Minister, he is the man who can command a majority in the House of Commons.
The mayor of London will have his own mandate and his own executive powers, and he will derive no authority from the assembly. The very point of the assembly is to keep the mayor in check and to scrutinise the mayor, so the potential for conflict is clear. It is not possible to straddle the gap between the two. The power to appoint


the deputy mayor from the assembly gives the mayor unacceptable patronage. Every member of the ruling coalition will know that the deputy mayor can be sacked at the mayor's whim, and any one of them could take his place. In an assembly in which only 13 votes make up a majority, it would be pretty easy to keep those members in line, because they would live in hope of becoming deputy mayor.
Our second reason for opposing the Government's proposals is that, as the deputy mayor will perform many of the mayor's functions, the public should know at the time of the election who the deputy mayor will be. We believe that he should run on a joint ticket with the candidate for mayor, so that it would be clear to all voters who he is, what his background is and what skills he would bring to the job. That would make the process clear, transparent and accountable.
That leads me to my third point. Our amendments would enable a business man to bring his commercial skills to the authority. Much has been made of the possibility of a business man running for the post of mayor. I have spoken to a number of business men about that in the past six months, but most of them shy away from the suggestion. The reason is clear. Believe it or not, to be a politician requires certain skills. They are not normal skills associated with normal behaviour, and some people find them easier than others. Such people are rarely business men. Many politicians have no business skills. We propose a formula that would allow an experienced politician to run as mayor with a business man as his deputy. There may be other combinations, but that would be a sensible package for any party to put forward. They would complement each other in a way that would benefit the authority and London as a whole.
There are two lesser reasons for the separation of roles, which are none the less relevant. First, members of the assembly will be busy enough without one of them having to take on the extra duties of deputy mayor. Pressures on the mayor and his deputy will be substantial. The deputy mayor will have little time to perform his role as an assembly man as well. Secondly, under our proposals, in the event of the mayor's incapacity, the deputy mayor would become the mayor, having already been endorsed by the public. To us, that is a particularly important point.
When the new authority is established, the pressure on the mayor and the mayor's office will be enormous. The Government are falling into the trap of making Londoners believe that the mayor will be the be-all and end-all of their problems. The pressure on him will be substantial, and the role of deputy mayor will be equally important. He will be a buffer, a voice, a wielder of executive power, and he should be independent of those whose job it is to scrutinise his role.
Those who have thought about how the mayor will operate will realise that there is merit in the amendments. I urge the Government to give them serious consideration.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: The previous speech—although it came from a representative of all the forces of evil and darkness in our society—had a lot of merit. It was consistent and coherent. The Government are importing to Britain an American style of government, with the separation of the legislature and the Executive.

In America, the President and Vice-President run as a team, and there are real advantages for my party in listening to that argument.
Given the nature of the way in which this place operates, we will not be told tonight that the amendment can be accepted. However, as the Bill is debated here and in another place over the next few months, there is every possibility that my party could be persuaded to see the strong advantages in the Conservative proposals.
In the first place, it would be wholly wrong for someone to run as mayor without saying whom they intend to appoint as deputy. Suppose I were to run as a new Labour candidate, opposed to tax-and-spend and in favour of bombing Iraq—all the normal package. If, having been elected mayor—if that were possible on such a slate—I appointed as my deputy some horrendous old Labour candidate, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), people would feel cheated. At the very least, every party should make clear who the deputy will be.
The deputy's position will be one of power and influence. The Bill implies clearly that the deputy mayor will chair the police authority—although that is not 100 per cent. certain—and that is a major and important public role. No one should have to cast a vote without being absolutely clear whom the mayor intends to appoint as deputy. It would be bizarre if an American President were elected and announced afterwards that he was appointing someone about whom the public were completely in the dark.

Mr. Edward Davey: If memory serves me correctly, the hon. Gentleman became leader of the Greater London council without the people of London knowing that he would become the leader.

Mr. Livingstone: If the hon. Gentleman had been around in London at the time, he would know that the Evening Standard made clear what was to happen virtually every day throughout the election campaign. On the day before the election, an entire front page editorial said that, if you vote Labour, you will get Ken Livingstone. Everyone then expressed surprise when that wonderful event came to pass. As far as I recall, the only Londoner who was surprised was Andrew McIntosh.

Mr. Stephen Pound: The noble Lord.

Mr. Livingstone: Indeed.
Under the present proposal, we could have a bizarre situation. If the mayor were to die in office, or resign, the deputy mayor would take over and, within six months, an election would be held to fill the post permanently. However, if that death occurred 18 months before the general election, a fairly lengthy selection and election process would be followed almost immediately by the normal four-yearly election. Therefore, asking Londoners to vote for a ticket—a mayor and a deputy—knowing that, if the mayor is incapacitated, they will get the deputy, seems to be eminently more sensible.
When the Conservative party announced the proposal, I heard on the radio my party's initial reaction, which was to say that the proposal could not work because the deputy might get more votes than the mayor. Clearly, if two different votes were cast, that could be possible—but that


is not a sensible approach. There should be one vote and, on the ballot paper, there should be the name of the mayor and the mayor's chosen deputy.
During the American presidential election of 1800, the vice-presidential candidate, Aaron Burr, received the same number of electoral college votes as Thomas Jefferson, and the issue had to be resolved in the House of Representatives. However, we can learn from that experience, and run—as the Americans have done ever since 1800—a joint slate of two names.
As the Bill is considered, we must look at the role of the deputy mayor. That matter will come up in later amendments, but there could be a problem if the mayor nominated the deputy mayor to be a member of the police authority with the understanding that he was to become chair. Unless the mayor can make that appointment, the members of the police authority, not elected by Londoners but appointed by the Home Secretary, could conspire to prevent it from happening. We must ensure that a powerful deputy mayor has a powerful role. There should be a clear understanding, even if it is not put into the Bill, that the deputy mayor should be the chairman of the police committee.
5.15 pm
There would be a danger of members of the assembly keeping their nose clean with the mayor if there was the slightest possibility of their being chosen as deputy. Those of us with long experience in local government will know of many instances in which people have voted loyally for the party line, year after year, never dissenting, and have been rewarded with a year as mayor, with the allowance, drinks cupboard, nice meals and visits that go with the post. That certainly happened in Lambeth in the late 1960s when I was a discordant voice in the Labour party ranks.
The deputy mayor should be directly elected, not appointed from among assembly members. I am in agreement with almost all that has been said in support of the amendment, and I hope that my party will not reject it out of hand. Nothing undermines respect for politicians more than a knee-jerk rejection against an idea simply because it has come from our opponents.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We, too, are grateful to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) for initiating this debate. Like the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), I will not offer a knee-jerk reaction.
Let me remind the Committee of the history of the proposals so far.

Mr. Pound: Oh, no.

Mr. Hughes: The history will be brief but instructive.
We started with no proposal for a deputy mayor. We, among others, sought to persuade the Government that it was important to have a deputy mayor, not least because the mayor could disappear, through death or other peradventure. We proposed, and still propose, that, because we cannot get what we most want—to have the mayor, as the leader of London politics, elected from the assembly, just as, in a slight variation because of the involvement of the monarch, Parliament allows the Prime Minister to be appointed—the deputy mayor should be chosen from among the assembly.
After some distillation in the Government machine, a counter-proposal was made to have a deputy mayor appointed by the mayor. That is progress, because we get a deputy, but it has the defect illustrated by the hon. Member for Brent, East: it is a patronage job. On the day after the election, the mayor looks round and decides, possibly without any prior notice to anybody, who will be the deputy. There is no suggestion that the mayor and deputy might reflect the balance of political view of the assembly, no guarantee that a female mayor would have a male deputy, to reflect London's gender balance, and no obligation to reflect London's ethnic mix.
The mayor might choose a best buddy as deputy. Some long-past political favour might be paid off. That is bad news, for the reason given by the hon. Members for Brent, East and for Croydon, South: the deputy is one step away from being the mayor. Who knows how long the mayor might survive, either politically or personally? The mayor might drop dead the day after election.
For however long or short a period, the deputy will have to carry out the functions of mayor, as well as having the important job of deputy while the mayor is still in post. He or she will deputise on a regular basis, and, with a small authority of only 25 members, there will be a lot of work for the mayor's office. It will be an important job, and we should think about how to fill it.
The Liberal Democrats cannot, without further development of the idea, support the proposal that a deputy should simply be elected on a single slate without any qualification. However, I accept that that proposal is a perfectly logical alternative, and the case has been put that a political mayor might have a non-political deputy. The reverse could arguably occur: in a press article some months ago, the Prime Minister said that he would like a business person to be mayor, and, if someone is plucked from the ranks of Labour supporters to fill the candidacy—just as Labour has plucked business people for other jobs—we could have a politician as deputy mayor.
There are flaws in the Conservative argument. To have two people elected on the same slate means a bit of a closed list. When the press spin on the Tory suggestion of electing a deputy at the same time as the mayor was first published, there was a hint that the deputy might not come from the same party as the mayor. There could be a mixed slate of—to pull an example from thin air—Lord Archer as the Tory mayoral candidate and the hon. Member for Brent, East as the candidate for deputy mayor. I do not think that any such deal has been struck, but who knows what might happen later in the campaign. We are not against that.

Mr. Livingstone: I am.

Mr. Hughes: I mean the idea, not the package: I should not want to tie the hon. Member for Brent, East to the idea that that was the dream team for any of us.
The idea of having a mayor and a deputy from different parties, or even of having one or other from no party at all, is rather appealing, and it is one of the prospects opened up by the new authority. It would be better, however, to advance as we propose, even if the Government do not go as far as the hon. Member for Croydon, South has proposed. On the day after the elections, it would be far better for the assembly to choose


who would provide an appropriate balance to the mayor than to have the choice preordained either by a deal struck before the election or by a secret deal revealed by the mayor after the election with a fanfare of trumpets.
If, for the sake of argument, Labour, which got the largest share of the vote at the last general election, wins the first mayoral election, and if the deputy is chosen from the assembly, which will probably be balanced with no party having an overall majority, it may be in the interests of the government of the whole of London not to have a deputy mayor who is Labour. A Conservative, Liberal Democrat, independent or even Green deputy mayor could help us to make London government look as if it represents all the people. One way in which to do that is not to offer London a government for five years in which the mayor, deputy and everything else will be Labour, but to offer something more pluralist. London is not a one-party state; indeed, no party has a majority since, as I got the Minister to concede some months ago, Labour did not even quite win a majority at the last elections in London. In the words of one of our previous leaders, "We're all minorities now," although some are larger than others.
The Government have been very good about wanting a pluralist, representative assembly for London. It should be representative of gender, age, background and ethnicity. It should feel like and look like a government for London, unlike Westminster, which does not feel like an assembly representative of Britain: although it is getting better, we are not there yet.
In another guise, Sir Alan, you are one of three Deputy Speakers. There is an argument for having more than one deputy mayor, and I ask colleagues to consider that. If we have only one deputy mayor, the job will be subject to the sort of political scurrying that the hon. Member for Brent, East described. The deputy mayor will be one step away from being the mayor. Given that we cannot have what the Liberal Democrats would prefer, which is the mayor being chosen from among the assembly, having two or three deputies would give a better political spread—one from each of the groupings that we would expect to be in the assembly—and the leadership of London would be more pluralistic.
Finally, I hope that the Government will reflect on the benefit of responding to the Conservative proposition, which is supported by the hon. Member for Brent, East, and will consider how we can best get such a mixed ticket. The danger of the current system is that there is no opportunity for a running mate. The mayoral candidate might be driven by the politics of the next 12 to 15 months to declare who will be his or her running mate, as deputy, but would have to presume that the electorate would vote in the proposed running mate, and none of us should presume that. The deputy has to come from the assembly and, although there is a list system and one can make various assumptions about the people at the top of the list, one should not assume that X or Y will be in the assembly. We need to consider all the associated issues.
I join the hon. Member for Brent, East in hoping that the Minister will not reject such a proposition out of hand. Above all, I hope that he will not reiterate the argument, which appears to be based on a misconception about what is proposed, that the deputy mayor might get more votes—I never realised that that happened in America

in 1800, but I do not remember studying that period in history. My understanding of the proposition was that it would be a package and that we would vote for the two—the two names would appear on the ballot paper together and would therefore have the same number of votes. It is not a question of the deputy getting more than the mayor; it is one package, two people.
I hope that the Minister will be generous and will at least open up the debate. Above all, the Liberal Democrats hope that, at the end of the further consideration, the Government will move 100 per cent. They have moved 50 per cent. of the way by conceding a deputy mayor, but have stopped at allowing him or her to be appointed by the mayor. If they move 100 per cent., so that the assembly chooses the deputy mayor, those whom the wider electorate of London have elected to represent the city will have a say in its leadership. Therefore, the leadership base will not be as narrow as it would be with only a directly elected mayor and the person whom she or he appoints.

Mr. Tony McNulty: At the risk of being as pedantic as the Liberal Democrats, let me say that I am confused by the amendments, not least because of the use of the comma. Amendments Nos. 60, 61, 62 and 64 all refer to "`, the Deputy Mayor"', whereas, given the introduction of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) to amendment No. 63, they should read, "'and Deputy Mayor'".
The words, "mayor and deputy mayor" would lend themselves to the system described thus far, which would be run according to one ticket with two people on it—the mayor and the deputy mayor. However, the amendments would insert a comma and not an "and". To my tiny mind that suggests that there would be an election for the mayor, for the deputy mayor and so forth. I then run into difficulty because amendments Nos. 62 to 64 do not elaborate on what the election of the deputy mayor would entail.
We are considering four or five amendments that would insert "', the Deputy Mayor'", but do not suggest how he or she would be elected. That wording would merely add in the notion of a deputy mayor—as though one could suddenly drop out of the sky. Under the amendments, there would be no election for the deputy mayor; while the election of the mayor and candidates is detailed in schedule 2, references to the deputy mayor stop at clause 2. Perhaps the hon. Member for Croydon, South will pick that up.
5.30 pm
As the amendment stands, we would have a sort of an unelected deputy mayor paratrooper—not elected on a ticket, not remotely associated with the assembly, the mayor's office or anything else—who falls from the sky. In the worst analysis, Lord Archer could be elected and say, for example,"I'll have Monica Coghlan as my deputy." Who knows? No election is suggested, so anything could happen. That may reflect my technical ignorance in not understanding the amendments but I suspect that I am right.
More generally, I want to scotch a notion. Here, and upstairs, things are lovely, convivial and consensual, and we all say that points are fair or legitimate. I want to scotch the idea that, given that we started from a point


way before the general election, the notion of a deputy mayor, whether or elected or not, is new and that the Conservatives in London, perish the thought, have lit upon this wonderful, novel idea. Hon. Members may say, "Let's not be hasty and throw it away immediately, let's be consensual and think about it because no one has thought of it before", but that is rubbish. Since the inception of the notion of a mayor, the question of whether there should be a deputy mayor and whether the post should be elected, appointed by patronage or whatever, has been discussed in our ranks and in everyone else's. The thought that the Conservatives could be novel enough to think of having a deputy mayor is rubbish. Hon. Members may plead with us not to throw out the amendments but that is abject nonsense.
Not every mayoral—as opposed to presidential—contest, in the United States involves a deputy mayor. Many United States cities have no deputy mayor. In others, one of the council members, in the narrow sense that they have council members, is nominally appointed deputy mayor and carries out mayoral functions as we understand them in London boroughs. It is not strictly an executive position. I strongly urge that we get rid of this proposal here and now without any consensual faffing. If it comes back in any shape or form we should get rid of it then, too.
As I said on Second Reading of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill, the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about gender and ethnicity cannot be fully legislated for. They are, and remain, the responsibility of political parties. Points such as the balance of the ticket—when the mayor is a female, perhaps the deputy mayor should be male—should not be picked up in legislation. I do not dismiss those points, but they are the responsibility of political parties. The linkage between the deputy mayor and the mayor is designed, as I now understand it, precisely to provide the crucial link between the mayor and assembly. The deputy mayor is not only a deputy but a link.
On having more than one deputy mayor, the Bill deals with the chair and deputy chair of the assembly and how they will fit in with the deputy mayor and mayor. That is also important but it will be discussed later.
Not least because of the way that the assembly will be elected, I do not accept the idea that was discussed on Second Reading that we will effectively have two hermetically sealed little units: a mayor going off in one direction doing whatever he or she wants and the assembly doing all that it can to stop him or her. We are talking about a brand new architecture of governance for London, and the mayor especially and the assembly had better understand that. If they think that it is all about smoke-filled rooms in Charles square, Walworth road, Millbank and wherever the minority parties live these days, they have another thing coming. Sooner rather than later, the mayor and the assembly will sit down and talk about consensual, practical, productive and realistic politics so that London can go forward. It is not about patronage or about reinventing Mayor Daley in Chicago, or any other horror stories of a mayor—I nearly said Morrison, but I did not mean that—but about a brand-new system for the millennium.
I would have difficulty—as would the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, I believe—if we stayed with the system set out in the Bill, because all the

mayoral candidates could say, "I will have so-and-so as my deputy mayor". That would be extremely presumptive, whether it was the top Tory, the top Liberal or the top Labour person on the list, or the Labour person in the safest of the 14 directly elected seats. That should not happen and I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. However, the deputy mayor should be put in place as soon as possible after the election for mayor. One would hope that the second time around, or in subsequent elections, if the team of mayor and deputy mayor had been successful on behalf of London, or if there were opposition incumbents, there might well be election tickets, as envisaged by the amendments.
The amendment is a pale, washed-out blue herring, rather than a red herring—nevertheless, still a herring—and should be totally resisted. If we fully understand the new architecture of the governance of London as set out in the Bill, we see the amendment for what it is: purely and simply, a wrecking amendment, tabled by the hon. Member for Croydon, South, whether his constituency is in Kent, Surrey or Greater London.

Sir Sydney Chapman: At one point in our short debate, I felt descending on me the emotion of an unholy alliance across the Chamber. I can only say to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) that I am always grateful for his interventions on this issue, because he brings a historical perspective to it. On Second Reading, he reminded us that it was the wicked but great Lord Salisbury who tried to remove the old London county council after it had been in existence for 10 years.
I am also pleased to follow the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) and later I shall refer to one of the points that he made. I can be brief because my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has articulated many of my feelings about why the amendment should be accepted. I believe that there will be a conflict of interest if the deputy mayor, who is to be appointed solely by the mayor, is a member of the assembly.
My point is a simple one, and it is one that the Government seem to have recognised, because clause 41—I hope that I am not trespassing too far beyond clause 2—states that the mayor cannot appoint a deputy mayor who is the chairman of the assembly. I prefer to say chairman rather than chair, not only because I am old-fashioned and believe that the man embraces the woman, etymologically, but because my surname is Chapman and not Chap. The point is that the mayor cannot appoint the chairman of the assembly as deputy mayor, or rather, that he can, but, if he were to do so, the chairman would have to resign as chairman of the assembly. The remarks of the hon. Member for Harrow, East reminded me that it is not only one person from the assembly who cannot be the deputy mayor, but two people, because the deputy chairman of the assembly cannot remain in that position if he is appointed deputy mayor.
That makes a fairly wide invasion into, even if it does not drive a coach and horses through, the concept that was powerfully argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South and the hon. Member for Brent, East. Will the Government consider the matter seriously? On balance, I believe that it is a good idea that the deputy


mayor should be elected on the ticket for the mayoral election, rather than be appointed by the mayor from the elected members of the assembly.

Mr. Pound: There are moments in my albeit very short—and not likely to be extremely long—life in this place when, against my every instinct, I feel a scintilla of sympathy for the views expressed by the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) occasionally makes a persuasive point. Today, he described a scenario in which the mayor was surrounded by a glittering constellation of deputy mayors, each and every one of whom represented another strand of Londoners. They were gathered almost inevitably in the millennium dome—because that is sure as hell the only place big enough to take them—and somehow they melded together in the interests of Londoners. That is despite the fact that an hour ago we were arguing about just where London is. If I have learned anything, it is that Bromley is clearly not in London-s-which is not a suggestion with which I have a great deal of trouble.
Unfortunately, listening to the argument that a thousand flowers will bloom and we will somehow link together, I was reminded—as I am sure were many other hon. Members—of the words of Ernest Bevin. He was an extremely wise and distinguished statesperson who once said, "If we had a little less democracy and a little more trust, we would get a lot more done." He was talking about what he described as "our great movement" that used to exist a few years ago.
We are talking about not some idealised internet scenario of the perfect, most democratic and most agonisingly painful representative voting system that ever existed in the solar system, but a practical system that will meet the needs of Londoners and our capital city. We are talking essentially about having a body that is smaller than the GLC, not about quadrupling its size and having sub-mayors from all over the place. I was a mayor of the London borough of Ealing—it is a period of Ealing civic history that is, oddly enough, seldom referred to in the history of that borough. However, I remember that period with great nostalgia—and not through a haze, it must be said. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) seemed to reduce the deputy mayoral issue to scrabbling for the keys of the drinks cupboard.
We have three propositions before us that are plainly wrong. They are advanced by the two Opposition parties and, with the greatest respect, by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East. The reality is that Londoners have waited far too damn long and we cannot endure more of these pettifogging, pusillanimous discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when there is work to be done. Our streets are choked with traffic and we must come to grips with many problems involving London's housing and environment. We have more important things to do than trying to work out the Southwark, North and Bermondsey model of ultimate democratic representation. It is simply not a valid use of our time.
I return to a point that I made earlier. Everybody accepts that we are talking about a different form of governance for this city. Nobody wants to recreate the London county council or the GLC. No one—with respect

to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty)—is talking about replicating Chicago of the 1950s. We are talking about a 21st century model for a 21st century city. That model will, by definition, be different. Let us judge the proposals tonight not by referring back but by looking forward to a slimline, tighter, more accountable and more controlled authority that will achieve for London. It is nonsense to suggest that having two elections for mayor and deputy mayor will further that objective. I suggest that that idea owes more to the Conservative party's need to accommodate internal strands of interest than to any attempt to reach a democratic conclusion.

Mr. Forth: For the avoidance of doubt—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to imply this—I hope that he is not suggesting that we should abandon the entire Committee proceedings and legislative process because it is absurd to examine the details of the Bill and discuss possible changes to it. If he is, he appears to be falling into step with his leadership which has exactly that wish and which wants to do away with the legislative process in the House of Commons. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reassure us in this early stage in the Committee's proceedings that he will allow us occasionally to discuss details of the Bill—and maybe even seek to amend it.

Mr. Pound: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I assure you that that was not my intention, Sir Alan. We have before us a Bill of 277 clauses which deals with some of the most important aspects that will affect our lives as Londoners and those of our descendants. I want to discuss environmental issues such as biodiversity, transportation and housing—

The Chairman: Order. We have before us an amendment about the deputy mayor and nothing else.

Mr. Pound: That is the point that I was making, Sir Alan. I am sorry, I was making it in my clumsy, naive way. There are issues that must be debated. My point is that since about half-past 3 we have spent the time and much energy discussing an issue that is not germane to the heart of the Bill for the reasons that I started to list, but I ran out of steam halfway through and you rightly called me to order, Sir Alan.
I have a great deal of sympathy for people who want to promulgate different views. That is their democratic right and their duty. However, on this issue, we are in grave danger of going down a blind alley in search of a mythical perfection. Such perfection possibly existed only in ancient Athens, and even then in fairly unpropitious social circumstances that we may not want to replicate. We are discussing practicalities, and for us to go into such detail about the deputy mayor seems an inordinate waste of time.
I support the Government's position, not as a toadying Back Bencher, but as someone who has been a councillor in London for 16 years, who has been involved in London politics for the best part of his working life and who seeks a system that works, perhaps not the ideal system, but one that is practical and manageable and which will deliver for this capital city.

Mrs. Lait: I am pleased to be able to support the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon,


South (Mr. Ottaway) for an elected deputy mayor. I hope that I do not blight the hopes of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) by coming from the side of darkness and saying that I thought he spoke a great deal of sense in his support for the amendment. We have also heard a couple of impassioned contributions about the current system.

Mr. McNulty: You began by referring—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has now been here long enough to know the correct forms of address.

Mr. McNulty: I apologise, Sir Alan, not least because you pulled me up on that yesterday.
The hon. Lady began by referring to an elected deputy mayor. Given the points that I made at the beginning of my speech, will she tell me where in the amendment there is a reference to the election of a deputy mayor and the details of that process, because I could not find such a reference?

Mrs. Lait: With the greatest respect, I have to say that the hon. Gentleman wasted the Committee's time by arguing about commas when we are discussing the principle of a directly elected deputy mayor. That measure would be a good way to reinforce the principle that Ministers are trying to support—the separation of the executive from the legislature. That is the sense in which I strongly support our amendment.
I am rather sad that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) let his wings of imagination take flight—the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) endorsed his point—and asked us to envisage hundreds of sub-mayors in the dome. We seek only one directly elected mayor.
I know that we are short of time, so without reiterating any of the points that have been made, I want to make a practical point about the drawback of having a deputy mayor chosen from among the assembly members. The deputy mayor might be chosen from among those members who will be directly elected by the boroughs. One hopes that they will have constituency work of the type that most councillors have to do. They will each be representing more than 300,000 people, so I suspect that they will have a reasonably sized postbag. It will take them time to deal with that correspondence, along with the work that the assembly will be doing.
The other option is to have a deputy mayor chosen from the list. That takes us back to the problem, which I shall not outline at great length—I should be pulled up if I did so—of the two types of elected members and their various powers and responsibilities and to the role of proportional representation in delivering people who are genuinely representative.
One assumes that the London members will not have the same postbags as the others and so will have more time. It is therefore almost a foregone conclusion that the deputy mayor will be chosen from among the London members. Of course, the London members are, against the will of the Opposition, to be chosen by the parties. That means that the deputy mayor will have a great conflict of interest if the assembly is, for some reason, in dispute with the mayor or if the assembly and/or the mayor is in

dispute with the Government. Whoever is elected as a Labour London member will certainly be chosen by the party and will hence be approved by the Government. I would not wish to have the job of that deputy mayor.
The suggestion that there should be a directly elected deputy mayor gets around all of the problems inherent in having a deputy mayor who is chosen. I do not wish to stand for the assembly, but I would never take on the job of deputy mayor as set out in the Bill.

Mr. Keith Darvill: We shall of course debate the role of the deputy mayor when clause 41 is considered, but I oppose the amendment because it would affect the balance between the mayor and the assembly. The mayor will have a very powerful role, as set out in the Bill, and a ticket involving a mayor and a deputy would strengthen his powers dramatically. The assembly's role in checking those powers would inevitably be diminished by the amendment. It is important that there is a balance in the elections of the deputy mayor and of the assembly. Our job is to beef up the role of assembly members so that there is not too much power in the hands of the mayor. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Edward Davey: While listening to the hon. Members for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), I began to wonder whether they realised why they had been returned to this place. Parliament is meant to be about debate and discussing ideas. The hon. Member for Harrow, East suggested that we should not keep an open mind or think again during our proceedings. That seems to be wholly against the idea of parliamentary democracy. We and the Government should have an open mind. The hon. Gentlemen suggested that that meant being overly consensual. However, the Government state in the Green Paper that they want consensual government for London, so he is a little off message.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North seems to want government by diktat. He does not want us to debate how democracy in London should work. The very essence of the Bill is the setting up of government for London, and the structure of that government is clearly important. I am surprised and rather shocked by the hon. Gentleman.
Two arguments have been put forward by the hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) as to why there should be a deputy mayor running on a ticket with the mayor. The hon. Member for Croydon, South suggested that it would enable the position to be given to a business person. However, it does not necessarily follow that a business person would take up the post.
The notion that a business person who stands for elected office is different and not involved in politics has been debated in the London press and in the House, but it is devoid of logic. One reason that business people are not coming forward is that they do not want to get involved in politics. The idea that someone standing for office can be neutral and above politics is arrant nonsense. If a business man wants to become a politician, he should say so openly, not try to hide behind a neutral facade and pretend that he has nothing to do with the dirty business of politics. We should be proud of our profession, not try to sell it down the river by saying that we should have a business person who knows how to run things because we do not. Saying that shows a lack of confidence in our profession.
The other argument, deployed by the hon. Member for Brent, East, was the heartbeat argument. The argument, which we hear in relation to the constitution of the United States of America, is that the post of Vice-President is important and that the Vice-President should run on a ticket with the President—if the President dies, there needs to be an immediate exchange of power into the hands of another leader of the Executive.
I know that the Greater London authority is an important authority. We support it and believe that it will bring democracy to London, but I am afraid that a parallel with the role of the Vice-President of the United States does not apply. The President of the United States is rather more important than the future mayor of London, not least because he has his finger on the button. In the United States, the immediate transition of power is more necessary, and it makes more sense to have a double ticket in those circumstances.
As the hon. Member for Harrow, East said in one of his more relevant remarks, in other American cities which have a mayor, it is rare for there to be double-ticket elections.

Mr. Randall: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that for the Liberal Democrats, one of the benefits of a joint ticket is that it would enable them—as they like to do all over the country—to have two candidates expressing different views?

Mr. Davey: I am usually a fond admirer of the hon. Gentleman's contributions, but that was not worthy of him.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am almost tempted to pick up on the intervention of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), but I dare not do so. I want to pick up on the American example before my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) leaves the subject. The other obvious difference is that in the United States if the Vice-President takes over, he remains in office for the remainder of the four-year presidential term. Here, if the mayor were to die or resign, there would, rightly, be a by-election, unless it were at the end of a term. It is not a true parallel, in that sense, either.

Mr. Davey: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He makes the point as succinctly and perceptively as usual.
There are comparisons to be made with mayoral systems outside the United States. The Liberal Democrats look not only to Europe and America, but to Japan. There, the deputy mayor is effectively appointed by the mayor, but has to be approved by the council, which is a half-way house between our position and that of the Government as set out in the Bill. In Germany, a burgermeister does not appoint his deputy. The local council has to elect the deputy, who often comes from the opposition party, in an attempt to achieve the consensual politics that the Government say that they want, but which the hon. Member for Harrow, East clearly does not.
The business man and heartbeat arguments for a deputy mayor do not stand up. Unlike the hon. Member for Harrow, East, I like to keep an open mind. Let us have a

more detailed debate on the deputy mayor when we consider clause 41. If the hon. Member for Croydon, South can deploy some more arguments, I shall be happy to listen to them but, for the moment, I am unconvinced.

6 pm

Mr. Raynsford: Curiously, I shall start by agreeing with the opening proposition of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). He rightly highlighted the fact that we were creating a new structure of government, which for the first time introduces to this country the concept of the separation of powers. He rightly stressed that we should carefully consider its implications.
We agree whole-heartedly. That innovation is important. We believe that it will be usefully extended in the local government sphere, where we are exploring new models which will achieve a separation between the executive and scrutiny functions. We want to ensure that, in our proposals for London, the new arrangement, with the separation of powers, ensures effective scrutiny and effective working.
We have considered models of mayoral government from countries worldwide, and I hope that we have learnt where problems may arise. In particular, we saw potential difficulties where models allowed deadlock, because mayor and assembly often found themselves in conflict, with no good conflict resolution procedures. Often, the government of a city could be brought to a halt—or in some cases there could be no budget—because there was no effective mechanism for overcoming such deadlock.
Equally, we wanted to avoid a position that can exist if one too rigidly applies the American system, based on the separation of powers, where the only role of the assembly—or council, as it is usually called in America—is to criticise and scrutinise: a remorselessly negative role, with no effective positive role. That can often produce a frame of mind in which the mayor and the council or assembly never work together constructively, because they see themselves as implacably opposed to one another. We do not believe that to be a good model, and we have sought to develop proposals that will ensure that there are real links between mayor and assembly. In the Government's proposal, the deputy mayor is a key figure in establishing that link.
The Conservative amendments are logical only if we accept other elements of the Conservative party's proposals—notably its proposal that the assembly should be not directly elected, but appointed by the boroughs. I readily agree that it would be nonsense to select a deputy mayor from an appointed chamber of that kind, but, as the hon. Member for Croydon, South knows, we are not minded to accept his party's proposal for an appointed assembly, and we do not intend to accept the proposal that a deputy mayor be elected on the same slate as the mayor. That, as far as we can understand it, is the Conservatives' intention.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) said, the amendments do not make it clear whether the deputy mayor would be elected on a joint ticket, or whether the electorate could in any way express a view about the merits of the deputy mayor as such. If the deputy mayor stands on a joint ticket and the electorate are presented with the proposition that they may choose, let us say, Archer and Norris, those who want one but not the other do not have a good choice. They may


be happy to elect one, but they may be appalled at the idea of the other. Far be it from me to suggest which might arouse enthusiasm or hostility; the point is that the electorate would have no say.
Last year, in a different context, Opposition Members criticised us for not posing more than one question in a referendum, and I shall defend, as I did then, our decision to do so. The context was different, because then we were setting a proposition for a structure of governance. In this case, the Opposition are proposing that two people should be elected, but apparently, if I get it right, the electorate will not be able to say, "We should like one, but not the other." That is a monstrous travesty of democracy.
It is essential that the deputy mayor is a member of the assembly, to provide a bridge between the two parts of the authority, and to ensure that they develop a shared sense of purpose, and work together in the interests of London as a whole. That is the structure that we have devised, because we are seeking to develop a system that will encourage constructive working relations and a more consensual approach, and avoid unnecessary conflict. That is why the mayor and assembly members have clearly defined and different roles, and why it is essential that they are elected to fulfil those roles instead of simply being appointed.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the Minister will address the issue that came up in two different ways in the debate. Why should not the deputy, as we have long proposed, be elected by the assembly or—as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) suggested, taking the Japanese model—be proposed by the mayor, but agreed by the assembly, as appointments to high office are agreed by Select Committees worldwide? That would be entirely compatible with the proposition that the Minister has just put to the Committee about the need for a bridge between assembly and mayor.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will fully understand that there are many options. We have considered the options. Mayoral systems in different parts of the world have been studied, and I have described how we tried to come up with a system that we felt would work best in London. I accept that other models can work in different cities and might work here, too.
We happen to have formed a judgment that the right relationship is one in which there is a strong mayor, able to achieve results, and that, to help that process, the mayor should appoint the deputy mayor. Equally, however, we believe that the mayor must be accountable and must be subject to close scrutiny. Therefore we have put great emphasis on the relationships between mayor and assembly, ensuring accountability and close scrutiny.
I do not argue that the model that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has proposed is intrinsically wrong; I just happen to believe that the model that we have proposed is right, and is compatible with the general architecture—to employ the term used by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—of the system of government that we have put in place.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister accept, however, that if his proposition is carried, it would be unfair and illogical—for reasons well put from the Labour Back

Benches—for any mayoral candidate to announce before election day who would be their deputy? That would presume on the electorate's right to choose the assembly members and, therefore, the identity of the deputy would be unknown until the day after the election or later. The deputy could then be chosen for no reason other than a personal favour and preference by the person who was mayor. That is the most riddled with potential corruption of all the bits of the structure that the Minister is proposing to the Committee.

Mr. Raynsford: In a moment, I shall discuss the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised in his earlier speech about the possibility of problems of patronage. It is a serious issue, which we shall address. However, I point out, in relation to that latest intervention, that we do wish to leave a good measure of latitude to the mayor to appoint a person whom he or she feels is the appropriate person to fulfil that function.
One of the defined functions of the deputy mayor will be that of being a member of the Metropolitan police authority. Obviously, the mayor will have to think carefully about the qualifications of the person who will fulfil that very important link, not only in relation to the assembly, but in relation to the Metropolitan police authority. I consider it unlikely, unless the mayoral candidate is very confident indeed about the outcome of the election, that he or she would want to pre-empt the choice of deputy mayor by making an absolute declaration before an election.
Incidentally, I hope that we can, in these debates, acknowledge that a woman may be elected mayor. The assumption by some hon. Members that the mayor is bound to be a man is, to my mind, offensive. I am not referring to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who is entirely scrupulous and proper on these matters.
A mayoral candidate may wish to say who might possibly be the deputy, and that might provide a spur and give the electorate an incentive to return a candidate in one area; I suspect that such factors may well come into discussion. However, we are leaving that very much to the mayor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East, who a year ago, criticised our proposals, describing them as an inappropriate American import into this country, tonight took a very different viewpoint. He advocated that we should support the model proposed by the amendment, which resembles the American presidential—but not the American mayoral—model. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton argued well and effectively that the American President and Vice-President perform functions very different from those of American mayors. It is inappropriate to apply a presidential model to a mayoral system.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey raised the issue of patronage. He expressed concern that the mayor would be inclined to appoint people for inappropriate reasons. I do not believe that that will happen. The mayor will know that a good working relationship with the assembly will be crucial to the success of his or her administration. A deputy mayor who is—and is seen as—a figure of substance in the assembly, and who has influence and authority in it, will be essential to the good governance of London and to the success of the mayoralty. Inevitably, that will be a very important consideration in the mind of any mayor.
Our proposal allows scope for balance. Again, we would not want to pre-empt the mayor's decision, although, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and others have rightly said, we are looking for a framework of government that will be more inclusive, allowing more opportunities for the representation of groups that have not always been well represented in democratic institutions. Questions of balance will inevitably come into the equation when the mayor is making a decision. The important point is that the mayor must make that choice because he or she will have to work with the assembly, and the deputy mayor will provide a crucial link.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East rightly focused on the lack of clarity in the Opposition's position on how the deputy would be elected, and the contradiction obviously inherent in a joint slate, on which the electorate would not have the choice to express a preference for one of two candidates. The concept that we cannot have one without the other is somewhat curious. My hon. Friend also rightly emphasised how the Government's proposals involve putting into place a new architecture for the governance of London, in which the mayor and the assembly will work together and not be implacably opposed to each other.
Interesting contributions to the debate have also been made by the hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), and for Kingston and Surbiton, to which I have already referred, and by my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), who spoke with his usual humour, and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill).
The Opposition have argued that, if the deputy mayor were an assembly member, the assembly's scrutiny role would be diminished. That is not so. The assembly will have clearly defined powers to call the mayor, the deputy mayor and their senior staff to account. The mayor will have to answer assembly questions and justify his or her actions with reasons. Other than the deputy mayor, no assembly member will have executive functions. The assembly's scrutiny role will not, therefore, be compromised.
It is essential that there is a strong link between the mayor and the assembly in the person of the deputy mayor, who is able both to articulate mayoral intentions to the assembly and transmit assembly opinions to the mayor. The assembly will be heard at the heart of the mayor's administration, and assembly concerns will be high profile.
The Opposition's position is extraordinary. We must not forget that, 20 months ago, they did not want a mayor at all; they were totally opposed to the idea. Now, they want not one but two—although they do not want an elected assembly, which makes a travesty of scrutiny. How can a non-elected body scrutinise an elected mayor and an elected deputy mayor? The elected mayor and deputy would be able to turn to the unelected assembly and say, "We, alone, have a mandate from the people of London. How dare you challenge our mandate?" That would create an imbalance, as a result of which scrutiny would not work successfully. It is essential that both the mayor and the assembly have a mandate because they are elected, and can therefore fulfil their role as elected representatives.
Constraints on the mayor are obviously considerable under our proposals. We want arrangements for proper scrutiny which will allow the mayor's actions to be constantly under review. That depends on an assembly that is able to fulfil such a function confidently.
Frankly, the Opposition's case is shaky—not least in the suggestion that it will allow good business people to participate in running the Greater London authority, when otherwise they would be discouraged from doing so. Why should a business person be more likely to stand if he or she had to run for office as deputy mayor rather than mayor—or, indeed, as a member of the assembly? That is a laughable proposition. Of course we would like good business people to come forward, but there is no basis on which they should be constrained to fulfil only the role of deputy mayor.
We have had an interesting debate, although it has not taken forward to any constructive degree the Opposition's view on how the new body in London will operate. We believe very passionately in a structure of government that will allow both accountability and effectiveness. Having an elected deputy mayor, elected on the same ticket as the mayor, will not achieve that purpose. It will, in many ways, compromise it and include serious disadvantages. I urge the hon. Member for Croydon, South to withdraw his amendment. If he does not, I urge my hon. Friends and other hon. Members to vote against it.

Mr. Ottaway: At the heart of the amendment is the conflict of interest between the deputy mayor's capacity as an assembly man and his role as the voice of the mayor. The Minister has not addressed the issue properly or given a constructive and sensible response to the proposals. Under the circumstances, we therefore wish to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 120, Noes 371.

Division No. 37]
[6.16 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Duncan, Alan


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Duncan Smith, Iain


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Evans, Nigel


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Faber, David


Bercow, John
Fallon, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Flight, Howard


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Dr Liam


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gale, Roger


Browning, Mrs Angela
Garnier, Edward


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gibb, Nick


Burns, Simon
Gill, Christopher


Cash, William
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gray, James


Chope, Christopher
Green, Damian


Clappison, James
Greenway, John


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Grieve, Dominic



Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Collins, Tim
Hammond, Philip



Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hawkins, Nick


Cran, James
Hayes, John



Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David



Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Horam, John






Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Randall, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Key, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Soames, Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spelman, Mrs Caroline



Lansley, Andrew
Spicer, Sir Michael


Leigh, Edward
Spring, Richard


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lidington, David
Streeter, Gary


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Swayne, Desmond


Luff, Peter
Syms, Robert


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Townend, John


Madel, Sir David
Trend, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Tyrie, Andrew


Maples, John
Viggers, Peter


Mates, Michael
Walter, Robert


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Wardle, Charles


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Moss, Malcolm
Whittingdale, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Norman, Archie
Willetts, David


Ottaway, Richard
Wilshire, David


Page, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Paice, James
Yeo, Tim


Paterson, Owen

Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Pickles, Eric
Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Stephen Day and


Prior, David
Mr. Oliver Heald.



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Brake, Tom


Ainger, Nick
Brand, Dr Peter


Alexander, Douglas
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Allan, Richard
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Allen, Graham
Browne, Desmond


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Buck, Ms Karen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Burden, Richard


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Burgon, Colin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Burnett, John


Ashton, Joe
Burstow, Paul


Atherton, Ms Candy
Butler, Mrs Christine


Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Austin, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Banks, Tony
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Battle, John
Canavan, Dennis


Bayley, Hugh
Caplin, Ivor


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Casale, Roger


Begg, Miss Anne
Caton, Martin


Beggs, Roy
Cawsey, Ian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Chidgey, David


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clapham, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Benton, Joe
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Best, Harold
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blackman, Liz
Clelland, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clwyd, Ann


Blizzard, Bob
Coaker, Vernon


Boateng, Paul
Coffey, Ms Ann


Borrow, David







Coleman, Iain
Gunnell, John


Colman, Tony
Hain, Peter


Connarty, Michael
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cooper, Yvette
Hancock, Mike


Corbett, Robin
Hanson, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Harris, Dr Evan


Corston, Ms Jean
Harvey, Nick


Cotter, Brian
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cousins, Jim
Healey, John


Cranston, Ross
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cummings, John
Hepburn, Stephen


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Heppell, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Hesford, Stephen


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Dalyell, Tam
Hill, Keith


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hinchliffe, David


Darvill, Keith
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hoey, Kate


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Home Robertson, John


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hope, Phil


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Denham, John
Howells, Dr Kim


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Hoyle, Lindsay


Dismore, Andrew
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Dobbin, Jim
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Donohoe, Brian H
Humble, Mrs Joan


Doran, Frank
Hurst, Alan


Dowd, Jim
Hutton, John


Drew, David
Iddon, Dr Brian


Drown, Ms Julia
Illsley, Eric


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jenkins, Brian


Edwards, Huw
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)



Efford, Clive
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Flint, Caroline
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Flynn, Paul
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Follett, Barbara
Keeble, Ms Sally


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Keetch, Paul


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kemp, Fraser


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Foulkes, George
Khabra, Piara S


Fyfe, Maria
Kidney, David


Galbraith, Sam
Kilfoyle, Peter


Galloway, George
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Gapes, Mike
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Gardiner, Barry
Kingham, Ms Tess


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Kirkwood, Archy


Gerrard, Neil
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Godman, Dr Norman A
Laxton, Bob


Godsiff, Roger
Lepper, David


Goggins, Paul
Leslie, Christopher


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Levitt, Tom


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Grocott, Bruce
Linton, Martin


Grogan, John
Livingstone, Ken



Llwyd, Elfyn






Lock, David
Rooney, Terry


McAllion, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Rowlands, Ted


McCabe, Steve
Roy, Frank


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ruane, Chris


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Macdonald, Calum
Ryan, Ms Joan


McDonnell, John
Salter, Martin


McIsaac, Shona
Sanders, Adrian


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Savidge, Malcolm


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sawford, Phil


McNulty, Tony
Sedgemore, Brian


Mactaggart, Fiona
Shaw, Jonathan


McWalter, Tony
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mallaber, Judy
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Singh, Marsha


Marek, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Meale, Alan
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Merron, Gillian
Snape, Peter



Michael, Alun
Southworth, Ms Helen


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Spellar, John


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mitchell, Austin
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stevenson, George


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morley, Elliot
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mountford, Kali
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mudie, George
Stringer, Graham


Mullin, Chris
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stunell, Andrew


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Norris, Dan
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Oaten, Mark
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Olner, Bill
Timms, Stephen


O'Neill, Martin
Tipping, Paddy


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Touhig, Don


Pendry, Tom
Trickett, Jon


Perham, Ms Linda
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pike, Peter L
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Plaskitt, James
Tyler, Paul


Pollard, Kerry
Vaz, Keith


Pond, Chris
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pound, Stephen
Walley, Ms Joan


Powell, Sir Raymond
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Watts, David


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Webb, Steve


Primarolo, Dawn
Welsh, Andrew


Prosser, Gwyn
White, Brian


Purchase, Ken
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wicks, Malcolm


Quinn, Lawrie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Radice, Giles
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rammell, Bill
Willis, Phil


Rapson, Syd
Wilson, Brian


Raynsford, Nick
Winnick, David


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)



Rendel, David



Roche, Mrs Barbara



Rooker, Jeff
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)





Wise, Audrey
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wood, Mike



Woolas, Phil
Tellers for the Noes:


Worthington, Tony
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Wray, James
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. John Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. I am sorry to interrupt the House. For some days I have been trying to get a copy of "Urban Renaissance", a document produced by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is Lord Rogers's interim report and has been paid for by the taxpayer. It contains suggestions for urban renewal, many of which would interest both sides of the House, but neither side can get hold of it because the DETR has failed to provide any copies to the Vote Office. The DETR has held a press conference on the report and announced it to the public, but if one wants a copy, one must send someone to the DETR. Hon. Members cannot get copies.
Is it not time that the Government accepted that their first duty is to tell the House of their projects and programmes, and that the House should know about them before the press and the public? If we need such documents, we should be able to get them readily from the Vote Office.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order for the Chair, but I am sure that the House will have heard and noted the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 2 to 22 and insert—
'(2) The Assembly shall consist of 33 members comprising—

(a) one nominated representative from each London Borough and
(b) one nominated representative from the Corporation of London.


(3) The Mayor shall be returned in accordance with the provisions made in or by virtue of this Act for the holding of elections and the filling of a vacancy in the office of Mayor.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 82, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'consist of twenty five' and insert
', until the first boundary review under Schedule 1 consist of forty'.
No. 3, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'twenty five' and insert 'thirty-three'.
No. 18, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'twenty five' and insert 'forty'.
No. 4, in page 2, line 2, leave out from 'members' to end of line 6.
No. 20, in page 2, line 3, leave out 'fourteen' and insert `twenty three'.
No. 21, in page 2, line 5, leave out 'eleven' and insert 'seventeen'.
No. 24, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
'following a review carried out by the Local Government Commission under the terms of Schedule 1 to this Act.'


No. 2, in page 2, leave out lines 34 to 39.
No. 72, in schedule 1, page 139, line 43, leave out from 'If' to second 'the' and insert
'Within 12 months of each ordinary election'.
No. 12, in page 141, line 25, leave out 'fourteen' and insert 'thirty-three'.
No. 28, in page 141, line 25, leave out 'fourteen' and insert 'twenty three'.
No. 13, in page 141, leave out lines 26 to 34 and insert—
'2. Each London borough shall be an assembly constituency'.
No. 57, in page 141, line 34, at end insert—
'6. If the population of any London borough either increases or decreases to such an extent that, in the opinion of the Local Government Commission, the strict interpretation of the rules would produce an unacceptably sized constituency, the Commission may vary the rules as it sees fit.'.

Mr. Ottaway: The amendment relates to the Opposition's proposal that the assembly of the authority should comprise borough representatives. We believe in a mayor who will speak for Londoners at a national level and for London on the international stage. The Bill shows signs of having tried to achieve that, but we have ended up with a rather lop-sided mayor.
The mayor has important powers vis-a-vis the boroughs. He can direct them on major planning matters, control their local transport and traffic arrangements, specify their waste disposal, recycling and pollution policies, and he, rather than the boroughs, will nominate the police authority members.
Far too much has been taken from the boroughs, particularly matters which are too operational in character—for example, taxicard and door-to-door transport, and highways management rather than just traffic management for the road network.
The Bill makes no provision for liaison or communication between the boroughs and the mayor. That is a glaring omission given that the boroughs will collectively spend approaching £15 billion and deliver all the basic services.
The Committee should bear in mind that the mayor and the assembly will comprise just 26 people. The delivery of all basic services will be through the London boroughs and the scope for negotiation and discussion with them is preciously thin.
As the Bill is structured, the assembly's role in all this is limited. As a result, the potential for a breakdown in the relationship between the authority and the London boroughs is substantial. Concerns are growing. To return to the quotes that I gave on Second Reading, the chief executive of Kensington and Chelsea said:
I think the immediate things that make everybody's hair begin to rise are the road network, transportation and planning, where the potential for conflict is substantial.
Just to show that Kensington and Chelsea is not alone, the chief executive of Islington said:
It's now about to dawn on everyone that the GLA is going to have a massive impact on the way the boroughs operate.

Mr. Gummer: In my hon. Friend's earlier examples of those areas which will be taken over, he mentioned the recycling of waste. I declare an interest in this, as the chairman of a company which recycles packaging. Is it

not important to have that close connection which Agenda 21 has with each of the boroughs? What will it mean if a borough decides to take some far-sighted view? For example, Islington might well take a far-sighted view on new ideas for recycling. Would it then be constantly hampered and pressed by a mayor who has little connection with the interests of the Agenda 21 committee and the borough?

Mr. Ottaway: My right hon. Friend is right. As I said earlier, the boroughs know best what is necessary for them. If they do not have the voice and the representation within the authority, they will feel rejected, and the potential for clash and conflict will grow. It is the essence of the amendment that, if the assembly was made up of borough representatives, their recycling and waste disposal men and the Agenda 21 representatives could have their voice heard by the authority and the mayor. My right hon. Friend makes a valuable point.

Mr. Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman said that the assembly would change the way in which boroughs operate. Councils all over London are giving planning permission to new out-of-town shopping developments which may well have an impact on neighbouring boroughs, and making other decisions which have an impact on their neighbours. Is it not about time that we changed the way in which boroughs operate and had a strategic overview which is not based on squabbling between neighbouring boroughs?

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman drifts into planning, which is just within the amendment's scope. If the borough of Croydon wanted to encourage a development by East Croydon station, but the mayor's vision was that that should be somewhere in north London, it will happen neither in Croydon nor in north London, where no one is promoting it in the first place. For the mayor to have the last word in planning policy is a barrier to planning development rather than the stimulus which the hon. Gentleman seems to expect.

Mr. Edward Leigh: May I press my hon. Friend further on his excellent remarks? There is a lot of merit in what he says. However, as a former member of the GLC and a London borough, may I ask him how he will ensure, when borough representatives are elected to the GLA, that rather than think parochially they bear in mind the interests of London as a whole?

Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend was a distinguished member of the GLC. I recall, on occasions, hearing him speak in that august body. Let the Committee be in no doubt that my hon. Friend was most robust on behalf of the citizens of Richmond, of whom I happen to be one. He took a very parochial view, and that is what the elected members of the assembly will do. They will speak up for their constituents. The Minister said that he did not want that; that the assembly should think strategically. If he expects that, he misunderstands human nature.
I was making the point that there is growing concern that there will be clash and conflict between the boroughs and the authority. As I understand it, the Minister attended a meeting of the London borough leaders in December where exactly the same point was made to him.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) is not with us today, but when he was leader of Merton council he said:
I have been to cities in the US with a directly elected mayor and seen the distress it causes. The leader of the assembly and the mayor are continually fighting.
That is the very point that we are making tonight.
The famous Evening Standard survey of a little over a year ago showed that 10 out of 19 town hall Labour leaders were opposed to the Government's proposals. It said:
Only five of the 19 Labour council leaders gave their enthusiastic backing to Mr. Blair's idea. Four refused to comment and said they had not made up their minds, but 10 were against the proposal. Many Labour councillors feared that a directly elected mayor was more likely to come into conflict with an elected Greater London Authority, creating 'gridlock'.
I could not have put it better myself.
On Second Reading, the Minister countered that weight of concern by producing a letter from the Association of London Government which said that the Labour leaders were mistaken when they expressed their opposition to our proposals for an assembly of borough leaders. The letter deserves closer scrutiny. It was written by the leader of Haringey council, which has more fraud investigations going on than you, Mr. Lord, have had hot dinners. I would not hold it out as a shining example of the voice of London.
But then we note that the letter was written, not by a Mr. Harris, but by a newly ennobled Lord Harris. The next thing that we observe is that he is one of Tony's cronies. Then we see that the letter is dated 14 December 1998. For those who were not present on Second Reading, that was the day before. What a surprise. One can imagine the Minister, who is an honourable man, picking up the phone and saying, "Toby, old chap, the Tories are banging on about their assembly proposals again. Do you think you could drop me a line generally rubbishing the whole idea?"

Mr. Raynsford: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that no such telephone conversation occurred. If he reads the letter—the Committee deserves to have it read—he will see that it says:
I note that the Opposition have put down a reasoned amendment to the GLA Bill Second Reading in which they call for an Assembly consisting of representatives nominated by the London boroughs…
This is not a view shared by the majority of boroughs in the Association of London Government.
That is the clear view: the Opposition proposal does not command the support of the majority of boroughs, on whose behalf they are supposedly arguing.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister has pre-empted my next point. I had a look at the nature of the consultation conducted by Lord Harris among the ALG and its membership and found that that view was not mooted in the ALG. It popped up at the leaders' committee several months ago. No vote was taken and there was no debate. The truth is that that letter is not worth the paper it is printed on.
We propose that the assembly be made up of representatives of the London boroughs. That sound and solid proposal would avoid the conflict described by the hon. Member for Putney and the gridlock described by the majority of Labour party leaders in London.

Ms Linda Perham: I am concerned about the Conservative party proposal for using representatives from the boroughs, which would make 33 members. A deputy mayor would be extra. Labour Members are going for a streamlined authority of 25 members. How does the hon. Gentleman justify the extra cost? The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) talked about more politicians and bureaucrats. Are not Conservative Members worried about bulking out the bureaucracy?

Mr. Ottaway: I find it hard to follow the hon. Lady's argument. As I understand it, assembly men will be paid. Although that is not in the Bill, and we have not had any word from the Minister, it is the general impression. There may be a financial saving, unless the hon. Lady is saying that the leaders of the London boroughs are paid more than the assembly men. We need to think through whether there will be more expense, and I venture to suggest that our proposal will be cheaper. The leader of Hammersmith council is trying to pay himself £40,000 a year, but Conservative Members would not support that.

Mr. McNulty: There was Conservative support.

Mr. Ottaway: The Conservatives did not support that; they voted against. As a result, the salary will be reduced to £22,000 from next year.
The advantage of the assembly consisting of borough leaders is that the borough representative knows what is going on in his borough. He would be the bridge between the man in the street and the mayor. The Minister has said that the proposal will not work. His concept is that, once elected, assembly members should think strategically and have no regard for borough interests. He does not want them pushing forward their case at local level, but wants them to think of London as a whole. That is complete twaddle. It ignores human nature, but, even worse, it is an attempt to rewrite the democratic process.
Does the Minister honestly think that constituency members will not argue their case? A feature of the Labour-dominated London fire and civil defence authority is that it is always cutting the number of fire appliances on the streets. Having recently closed a fire station in my constituency, it is seeking to close another.
Does the Minister honestly believe that the assembly member for Croydon and Sutton would not lobby to keep such a fire station? Does he think that the assembly man for Greenwich and Lewisham would not have something to say about a proposal for a major development in Greenwich, or does he really think that the assembly man would stand back and think strategically? Does he think that constituency members on the police committee would not fight against closure of police stations? If he does, he totally misunderstands human nature. His only argument against an assembly of borough leaders is that they will fight their corner. Whoever is in the assembly will fight their corner.
6.45 pm
The Bill confirms that the assembly will be enfeebled. Other than supplying the chairmen and members of the four functional bodies, and other than in the unlikely event of a two-thirds majority opposing a mayoral budget, it will be essentially powerless and useless. The assembly is superfluous and likely only to add to the mayor's problems and the degree of bureaucratic entanglement generated by the new system.
That could be easily overcome by recognising the strength, importance and role of the London boroughs in the overall government of London and by having an assembly made up of borough representatives. London is a city of villages. The boroughs are the voice of the villages and the Minister ignores those voices at his peril.

Mr. Edward Davey: I shall comment briefly on the Conservative amendments and what the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has said. The Liberal Democrats certainly do not support his idea of the assembly being made up of borough leaders, for a number of reasons. First, borough leaders have something else to do—run their boroughs.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Our amendment provides for an assembly of borough representatives rather than borough leaders.

Mr. Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification, but in other debates the Conservatives have suggested that borough leaders would make up the assembly. Borough representatives would presumably be elected councillors, if there is to be any element of democracy. Even an ordinary ward councillor has an awful lot to do, or should be doing an awful lot, for his constituents, who he has been elected to represent.
Asking people to represent their constituents in two different places would reduce their ability to hold the mayor to account. We want to ensure that the mayor is held properly to account. That should be done by elected members, whose sole job it would be, which would ensure that the assembly has more power. The Conservative amendment would reduce the power of the assembly and reduce the ability of its members to hold the mayor to account effectively, which is a dangerous path to take.
The idea that borough representatives would take experience of what they do in the borough up to the assembly does not wash. The assembly will do different things primarily. The hon. Member for Croydon, South said that some borough powers are taken away by the Bill. That is true, and we shall return to the matter, but relatively few powers are being taken to the assembly. The assembly and the authority will focus far more on other issues—transport and the police in particular—so it is just as well that other people with a different mandate have the job of considering those issues.
I agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who seemed to be worried that borough representatives would form a parochial Greater London authority. I share his concern, and I know that the Government are also concerned. Assembly members must be able to take a strategic overview. That will lead to better government for London, not worse.
The point made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South about the need for liaison between the boroughs and the GLA was well made, but it is debatable whether

it needs to be in the Bill. The boroughs, collectively, will want to liaise and consult with the GLA. Perhaps the Committee should be debating whether such an obligation should be in the Bill. Although that is not the main thrust of the Conservative amendment, it is an interesting point and I hope that the Committee will return to it.
Our amendments seek to increase the number of assembly members by increasing the number that would be elected from constituencies and the number on the list. Our vision of London government differs slightly from the Government's, as we believe in a much stronger assembly that would be both more democratic and have more powers. In our response to the Government's consultation, we made it clear that we felt that the Greater London authority should have a voice in the running of the health service and further education in London. Further education and health are functions with a strategic characteristic, and it would make sense for a strategic body to be able to hold health and education authorities to account.
Given that our model would oversee a much larger budget than the Bill proposes, it is important to have more assembly members to fulfil those tasks effectively.

Mr. Forth: As the hon. Gentleman develops his argument for an increase in the number of representatives, and before we are asked to decide on the merits of the case, will he give us his estimate of the increase in the cost to London taxpayers of that level of representation?

Mr. Davey: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point: the House should always consider the cost of proposals before it. If he reads the amendments he will see that we propose to increase the number of representatives from 25 to 40—an increase of 15. The Conservative party wants an increase of eight. The costs involved are not huge. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Liberal Democrats did not want a mayoral office to be created. Were that option before us today, a huge sum could be saved, allowing us to have even more members of a proper assembly. The mayor is an expensive element because of all the trappings of mayoral office.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I note that the hon. Gentleman is a recruit to Herbert Morrison's theory, which was that the health service should be within the control of the then London county council. How does he imagine local government could possibly control a national service, and how would that dovetail with surrounding national health service priorities?

Mr. Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to continue my point. I did not realise that I was a recruit to Herbert Morrison's theory. He was a distinguished politician and had the good idea that we should hold public services to account through local government. Ministers say that this is not local government, but citywide government. It is a unique form of government. Liberal Democrats believe that NHS planning should be done regionally and on a strategic basis, and that it should be held to account regionally and strategically. The sort of issues involved in a health


authority the size of London's would be suitable for this type of body. As the Minister said, it does not replicate local government.

Mr. Gapes: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would be happy to have different provision for medical treatment in different regions of the country? Is the Liberal Democrat policy now to have separatism within the health service and other services?

Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. If he believes that we have national standards and a uniform service provision in the health service now because it is planned nationally, he has clearly not visited hospitals and health authorities around the country. They have totally different purchasing plans and service levels now. We simply argue that the health service should be democratic, which is why we want to expand the number of assembly members and hold the health service to account. I am more than happy to see different services provided across the country, but the idea that that does not happen now is nonsense.

Mrs. Lait: The hon. Gentleman's proposal for strategic control of the health service existed on a local basis until the end of the 1980s. I am glad to say that we reformed it. Local government representatives sat on family practitioner committees. I happened to chair one such committee at that time, and it was difficult to get a decision out of that forum. Does the hon. Gentleman want a strategic authority that is unable to make decisions about the NHS?

Mr. Davey: Just because a previous form of democracy within the health service did not work does not mean that we cannot make it work. It works effectively in other countries, such as Sweden. The Landsting, which are equivalent to large county councils, hold the health service to account and look after major expenditure raised from taxation. The idea that one cannot make the health service democratic does not bear examination. I agree with the hon. Lady that previous systems were not perfect, but we cannot reform democracy by abolishing it. We seek to improve it.
Democracy in the health service can be introduced at local government level. It is absurd that in the London boroughs, social services are separate from health services and therefore unable to join their budgets to achieve greater efficiency and co-operation. I had an interesting dialogue with the Minister on the subject recently and I know that the Government want to bring those services together. I hope that doing so will not reduce accountability. We welcome the Government's desire to increase that.
The other reason that we want more representatives is to give the assembly more power. We want it to be able to hold the mayor to account more effectively. Our model would give the assembly more power than the model proposed in the Bill. More fundamentally, an increased number of representatives would give the assembly greater representation. Even under our proposals, each member would still represent fewer people than a London Member of Parliament does, but members would clearly be more representative.
Our proposals are logical and consistent with our proposals for the electoral system, which we will debate later. We favour the single transferable vote system, which requires multi-member constituencies. Such a system is logical if we have more assembly members. Increasing the number of members to 40 would facilitate that.
My arguments so far have been based on our perfect model for the Greater London authority, which would give the assembly more power. However, the argument for having more members still holds under the Government's proposals—the number of functions that the Government propose to give the Greater London authority and how they want to elect it. In terms of representation, an increased number of members will enable the authority to be more representative, which will increase accountability and links with constituents.
We also want members of the authority to be active on the committees. The Government are setting up a number of bodies: Transport for London; the London Development agency; the Metropolitan Police authority; and the London Fire and Emergency Planning authority. There should be enough assembly representatives to ensure that they are held properly to account. The mayor will be held to account for how he runs those bodies.

Mr. Randall: I am a little confused. On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman suggests that there should be no constituency link and, on the other, he says that the increased number of representatives would increase the link with constituencies. Which does he think will benefit the assembly?

7 pm

Mr. Davey: I think that the hon. Gentleman is slightly confused. Whatever body people are elected to, they have a constituency. It may not be a parliamentary constituency or a borough constituency, but they have a constituency. If there were 40 members, and 23 were directly elected from constituencies—as our amendment proposes—the currently proposed boundaries would have to be changed.

Mr. Randall: I am confused, because earlier, when the hon. Gentleman agreed with some of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), he was worried about the link with the constituency as a place. The suggestion now seems to be that the increase in numbers will be beneficial, as the assembly men will have a link with a geographical location.

Mr. Davey: I am grateful for that clarification, because I clearly misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's previous intervention. The point that I was making earlier was that we did not want the constituencies to be the same as the boroughs. We did not want members of the assembly to speak for the royal borough of Kingston or the borough of Richmond. Unless we are to have a list system for the whole of London, they will have constituencies with which they will have a link. The point that I was making to the hon. Member for Gainsborough was that the constituencies should not be identical to the current boroughs, because that would add to the parochialism.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, as they would not have a direct constituency link,


all the new Liberal Democrat members would speak for his party? What does he mean? Who else would they speak for, apart from themselves?

Mr. Davey: I am slightly confused by the hon. Lady's questions. The Liberal Democrats' preferred electoral system is the single transferable vote, which includes multi-member constituencies, so assembly members would have a constituency link and would be standing for a party. We admit that the Government are unlikely to change their mind and opt for a single transferable vote electoral system for the Greater London authority. We shall have to live with the dual system, which has constituencies and party lists. We believe that people will be free to speak for their constituencies, so I do not understand the hon. Lady's point.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I simply want a little clarification, because I am not terribly bright. The hon. Gentleman says that it does not matter if assembly members do not have constituencies, because they will nevertheless speak for their constituencies. There is certainly a problem with the English language here—which is not new, heaven help us. If they are not speaking for their political party or for a particular geographical area, how do they define their constituency representations?

Mr. Davey: Assembly members will speak for their constituents and for their political party. Members from the party lists will not have a geographical constituency, but the directly elected members will, and we have no problem with that. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) was worried that I was being inconsistent. He suggested that I was against parochialism, and was therefore against constituencies, but that does not follow. I was concerned that, under the Conservative amendment, the constituencies would be the same as the boroughs, so there would be competing forces within a borough to represent the area. That would increase parochialism. If the constituencies are different, that is unlikely to happen.
I hope that I have made myself clear to the hon. Lady, but I am more than happy to take another intervention.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman is as clear as the Liberal Democrat party ever is.

Mr. Davey: In the hon. Lady's opinion.
The idea of having more members on the assembly fits in with the Government's plans, because it would allow greater representation and increased accountability, and would enable members to be more active on committees. I wonder whether the real reason why the Government have gone for such a small number of members is because they are worried about the tabloids. They are concerned about arguments, such as that made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), that this proposal would be costly. They want a soundbite: they want to say that this will be a lean machine—a slim, streamlined government.
We argue that it is pretty lean and streamlined at 40 members—which is fewer than most borough councils have—as it is being asked to look after transport for the whole of London and to have a link with the Metropolitan Police authority. We do not think that an assembly of 40 members would be costly and weighed down.
The Government should reflect on our proposals to give the assembly more members. I hope that they will leave a door open, because as the Greater London authority develops over time—if it follows the model proposed by the Government—in a few years, if the Labour party is re-elected and its creation is doing well, unlike the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), it may want to give it more functions. If it gives the authority more functions, it may want it to have more members. I hope that the Government will not close the door on the idea that the assembly should have more members and should become more powerful.
I shall deal with two other amendments. Amendment No. 24 concerns the Local Government Commission and boundary changes. It is rather odd that any proposal to consider the boundaries will be triggered by the Secretary of State. The boundary commission has long had a rolling programme for parliamentary constituencies and European parliamentary constituencies. Under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, the commission is required to report not less than every eight years and not more than every 12 years, so it is automatic and is not at the behest of the Secretary of State. We propose that, rather than the Secretary of State being the trigger, it is left to the Local Government Commission to instigate reviews of the GLA boundaries. That would remove some power from the Secretary of State—the Minister will see, as we go through the Bill, that that is a theme of our amendments—and would ensure that there is no suspicion of gerrymandering when the GLA boundaries are reviewed.
I think it is amendment No. 75 in which the Conservatives are proposing that the rules governing the constituency boundaries in the GLA could be varied. The Liberal Democrats have no problem with that. We think that it makes sense to have flexibility.
I hope that the Minister will cover our substantive point. We believe that there should be more assembly members to ensure that the mayor is properly held to account.

Mr. McNulty: The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) referred to amendment No. 75, which is in the next group of amendments. It is a daft idea for the boundary commission, suitably empowered, to review the GLA boundaries within 12 months of every election. He referred to the commission's eight to 12-year rolling programme, but for some peculiar reason he wants the review of GLA boundaries to be carried out 12 months after the election, which is rather silly.
I have to say, with the greatest respect and the best will in the world, that the hon. Gentleman wittered on for more than 20 minutes and said precisely nothing, other than the mantra-like incantation we always get from Liberal Democrats that if they say something often enough it becomes true. He argued that more members equals greater representation. Why? He gave no reason—just that more members equals greater representation. We were told that if we increased the number of assembly members it would give them more power. We were not given the reason why—just that it would, as though Paddy could sprinkle magic dust over them and they would have more power because there would be 40 of them.
Let us talk about realities. Why do the Liberal Democrats want 40 members? It is because some candidates from their party may get elected. In all


likelihood, under the current proposals, no Liberal Democrats will be elected—absolutely none. Let us be honest.
The Liberal Democrats might just squeeze one of the pompous little clones coming out of Cowley street into a directly elected position if there were an increase from 14 to 23. If tonight's speeches are anything to go by—and we face more of the same for two months in Committee—the Liberal Democrats would be lucky to get one if there were 100 directly elected members. No justification has been offered for 23 as opposed to 14, as in the Bill, or for 17 as opposed to 11 in terms of the list.

Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is to charm what the Deputy Prime Minister is to sophistication. Sometimes, having more elected members enables a Government to be held more to account, and is more representative. Otherwise, it could be argued that this place should have 100 Members: then—following the hon. Gentleman's argument—this place would be no less representative and we would be able to hold the Government effectively to account. There are many cases where having more elected representatives increases democracy and improves accountability.

Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman is hoist on his own petard. I did not hear "sometimes" or "on some occasions" when he was waxing lyrical in his peroration. Now, in response to what I have said, those expressions trickle out. Yes, of course, sometimes more members means greater representation—sometimes. That is not what he said earlier. As for his joke, the hon. Gentleman should give Bob Monkhouse his joke book back. With all good will, I do not treat the Liberal Democrats' proposals seriously at all because they are loaded with self-interest and nothing more.
I say to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), the Conservative spokesman, that at least his party's proposals are legitimate. We have heard them before; they are not new, they are old hat and they are hackneyed, but at least they are legitimate. I happen to believe that the proposals are not the right way to go, but the hon. Gentleman described his case, extremely well, as complete twaddle, and so are the proposals.
In terms of the strategic governance of London, the Conservative proposals offer no way forward at all. They may be a pro tem measure, following the vandalism of destroying the GLC and putting the London residuary body in place. A plethora of bodies were generated, four of which were on the model proposed by the Conservatives. However, the London planning advisory committee, within a framework, worked, as did the London research centre, the London borough grants committee and—despite the comments of the hon. Member for Croydon, South—the London fire and civil defence authority.
In terms of looking after small portions of the strategic concerns of London, having indirectly appointed members from boroughs has worked—but only as a pro tern measure. We are putting those bodies back together, and adding our proposals on transport and other areas. To suggest that indirectly appointed members from each borough should carry out those functions is a complete nonsense. That does not fit with the thrust of the Bill at all, and should be rejected.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South has suggested a number of times—although his contributions belie it—that he is the fount of all knowledge when it comes to human nature. I said on Second Reading that the notion that, somehow, all assembly members—directly elected or otherwise—for the 14 constituencies, or the 11 on the list, will be parochialism-free is nonsense. The notion that the member representing Brent and Harrow might just occasionally look after the interests of Brent and Harrow in a strategic sense, or might speak for the people, is fair. However, the undemocratic measure proposed by the amendment would institute and formalise the notion of parochialism.
Within the strategic context of London, there is a distinct north-west London view that is different from a west London view and from a north London view—and is certainly different from anything south of the river. I would expect my assembly member to represent that view, and Brent and Harrow sit together neatly in all sorts of ways. However, the assembly member should represent those views in the context of the strategic whole that is London.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton made one good point—there may have been others; I may be ungenerous. He said that despite all the fears and scaremongering, the Bill does not significantly diminish the power of boroughs as was suggested on Second Reading and during the passage of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998. The Bill takes some powers away within a strategic framework, but that is right and proper.
7.15 pm
Within that context—because we are, after all, talking about the composition of the assembly in terms of the number of constituencies—I believe that the model proposed in the Bill is the only appropriate one. The notion of multi-member constituencies and single transferable vote—all that nonsense—does not work, either.
The notion of nominating representatives from boroughs has been mentioned. The point was made that leaders would be too busy, but, to be fair to the hon. Member for Croydon, South, there is no reference to leaders, only to nominated representatives. The notion that they could do the job that full-time members of the GLA will be charged with—that of looking after London's strategic interest—is complete nonsense.
The proposition that, somehow, we should have more members to sprinkle around the committees is also nonsense. Full-time members will be charged with looking after London's strategic vision, and they can probably manage two or three committees. Certainly, that is something that the Liberal Democrats in Harrow could never manage. They were never there—even when they were supposed to be running the place. In the interests of the strategic vision for London, as outlined in the Bill, the only way forward is the 14-11 split in terms of the constituencies, as alluded to earlier by my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction.
I wish to make one throwaway point. I would not wish people to think that I am a pedant, but I do not understand why amendment No. 13 has been included in this group as it does not fit in with what the hon. Member for Croydon, South said about appointed members.


The amendment proposes that one borough should equal one constituency. I do not know how that fits in with the group, but it may be a slip-up. I urge the Committee to resist the amendments—they are nonsense.

Mr. Leigh: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) was saying about the one and only Liberal who might serve on the GLA, because I had the distinction of being the only sitting member of the GLC ever to lose to a Liberal, thereby ensuring that the Liberals achieved, in the shape of Adrian Slade, their one and only representative ever on the old GLC.
This has been an interesting debate, and has shown up some of the difficulties that the new body will face. I have considerable sympathy for what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said. I have served on boroughs and on the GLC, and I am genuinely neutral on the matter. I am an interloper from the rural fields of Lincolnshire—I have no stake at all. Hon. Members might wonder why I am speaking in the debate. In any event, I shall be brief and share my experiences with the Committee.
If representatives were elected on to the new body from boroughs, they would see themselves as being the voice of the borough on the new body, rather than the voice of the people. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South may think that that is fair enough. However, I used to serve on organisations such as the London Boroughs Association, and the problem is that it would not be the leader of the council who would be nominated to serve on the body—he would be far too busy; it would not even be the high-fliers—the chairmen of the committees; it would be the semi-retired, older members—Alderman Pompous or Councillor Hack—who would be put on the new body,
Having served on bodies such as the LBA, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South that they are irredeemably tedious and are staffed by people who, although they are very worthy, would not set London alight. I am not sure that anyone serving on the new body would be capable of setting London alight, but those people certainly would not. I have some doubts about what my hon. Friend said, but the amendment is perfectly serious and should be debated. My hon. Friend said that there would be tension between the GLA and the boroughs. However, if there were no tension, there would be no point in having the GLA. Tension can be a creative and useful force.
We all know that the old Greater London council did not work very well, although I greatly irritated Lady Thatcher by voting against its abolition at every stage, because I was convinced that nothing would be achieved by that, and I still believe it. Nothing has been achieved politically, because the powers were simply passed down from a body that we sometimes won to bodies in inner London that we never won. A lot of irritation was caused to London people. The party has now, wisely in my view, gone back on the policy of abolishing the GLC. It still does not believe in the GLA, but it accepts the concept of London government in the shape of a mayor.
There will always be tensions; one cannot avoid them. I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South is trying to do: he wants to create something more sensible and creative that will work in

the way that the GLC never did. The GLC did not work well because it was always trying to be a strategic body, but that is an amorphous phrase that has little meaning. What is a strategic body? Funnily enough, the GLC worked better in its old days as the London county council, when it was not a strategic body and carried out direct functions involving public housing and other matters. I say that as a Conservative Member, knowing that we never won the LCC.

Mr. Brooke: We did.

Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend is a distinguished historian, and I knew that he would interrupt me, but I think that I am right in saying that we never won the LCC after the second world war, although we had a distinguished record in running it sometimes before then.
There will always be problems. My view is that the GLA is probably doomed as a body. It will come into being and work, but the centre of power in London government is now moving remorselessly towards the mayor's office. That is where all the political interest will be and where all the high fliers will want to end up. I fear that the GLA will become a token body, at best a creature of the mayor.
I have adduced all the problems, but what is the solution? It is easy to criticise, but far more difficult to be in the Minister's seat and try to create systems that work. We have had so many models of government for London. I do not know what the solution is, but I have an idea. Perhaps we should not have members of the GLA appointed directly from the boroughs, for the reasons that I have given; perhaps we should not go down the route proposed by the Liberals, which seems to be unduly cumbersome; and perhaps a solution that used to work quite well in the early days of the GLC, before I joined it, is sensible.
The GLC used to have separate members who effectively represented boroughs, rather than individual constituencies, as was the case when I joined. They were not borough members, but they represented areas that were similar or exactly equal to the boroughs, so they had a borough interest. It has been said repeatedly in this debate—and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South rightly chided me on the point—that, whether members represent boroughs, constituencies or wards, they will inevitably take some parochial interest; and perhaps that is no bad thing. If people were elected to the GLA to represent areas corresponding to boroughs, they would be able to balance priorities between parochial and wider London interests.
I want to say a word in defence of members of the old GLC, and people who will now no doubt serve on the new GLA. They have often had a bad name. I served happily on the GLC with my current pair—although we are not allowed to pair now—the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who was a conscientious member of the GLC, although we disagreed politically.
It is true that many members of the GLC were parliamentarian manqués and tried to create a little parliament over the river, which may have been rather pathetic in many ways, but people such as Horace Cutler, Desmond Plummer and Richard Brew on my side,


and many on the other side, were absolutely committed to good governance in London, and I am sure that those who serve on the new GLA will be equally committed.

Mr. Darvill: Once again, the Opposition are flawed in their thinking. We will frequently return to the overarching theme that the GLA will be a strategic authority. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, I do not consider that an amorphous concept: I think that it is relevant and needed.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) made two major points against the Bill's provisions, in support of the amendment. He complained that powers and duties were to be taken away from local authorities and that there was no obligation on the mayor and assembly to liaise with those authorities. I believe that he was wrong—powers will not be taken away from local authorities. Clause 27 sets out expressly the powers that the GLA will have: it prohibits expenditure on housing, education, social services and health services. No doubt when the Committee discusses the GLA's general powers, more consideration will be given to how local authorities will be affected.
The strategic role of Londonwide non-elected bodies will be taken back under the democratic accountability that was removed by the previous Government when they abolished the GLC. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) listed those bodies clearly a few moments ago.
On liaison, the hon. Member for Croydon, South was again wrong. For example, clause 126 provides that each London borough council will provide local implementation plans for transport strategy. Both implicitly and expressly, that creates the liaison that he complained was not in the Bill.
The amendment suggests a larger, non-elected, nominated body, which would inevitably be parochial and undemocratic because of its constitution. That is basically wrong. I have greater sympathy with the Liberal amendments in the group, but the argument for them has not been clearly made and I think that, on balance, a 25-member assembly will be right. I urge the Committee to reject all the amendments.

Mr. Brooke: The clause 1 stand part debate concerned the main and essential principle of the Bill, and everything that follows clause 1 is essentially detail. We embarked on that detail on the previous group of amendments. I agree with the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) that the best is the enemy of the good, but the fact remains that it is our duty, both down on the Floor of the House and for weeks and weeks Upstairs, to seek to improve the Bill, as we are setting a framework that will govern London well into the next millennium.
A debate on the detail is important, and I hope that the Committee's enthusiasm can be maintained throughout our proceedings, so that we can remain vigilant. We do not think that everything in the Bill is bad—I have already acknowledged that there are good things about it—but, even if we do not aim to make the good best, there is no reason for not seeking to make the good better, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on initiating this debate.
As I understand it, the Government's main objection to the amendment is that, if the assembly simply consists of representatives of the boroughs, nimbyism will flourish and a strategic view will not be taken. I am not my brother's keeper, so of course I do not know every single thing that my Member of the European Parliament does, but the only time I ever come across him is when he is taking up domestic matters in the constituency that have nothing to do with Europe. No doubt he spends some time on Europe, but he has no hesitation at all in taking up any domestic, local issue if it will gain him some column inches in the local press. Clearly, in that respect he is not doing his European job per se.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said about the GLC, from his direct experience, reinforces my uneasy feeling that the enthusiasm for concentrating on people who will take only a strategic view will not insulate us from people who will in fact take considerable interest in local matters.
7.30 pm
The great Lord Slim, commander of the 14th Army in the second world war, wrote in an essay after he had ceased to be an active soldier, that it was characteristic of the British Army that it was always required to fight uphill, and always required to fight at the juncture of two or more maps. The logic of that was that the strategists did not place the Army in the best possible position in which to fight a war. One of the characteristics of charity law nowadays is that trustees are supposed to exercise strategic roles and to guide their charities towards long-term aims. In my experience, however, on every charity on which I have served the trustees have become enormously preoccupied with local detail, and they do not, except in very large charities, fulfil that strategic role.
The party list system will cause those who choose candidates to mark people on how strategic they are being. It is also true, however, that if one wishes to be elected or re-elected to anything, one must have a public persona. It would surprise me if those who serve on the London assembly do not seek to acquire a public persona through their actions. I am not convinced that nimbyism will be absent under the Government's proposals.
My second point relates to our other debates on constitutional reform, such as the forthcoming debate between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. If the Lords were to seek greater powers, those powers could be taken only from the Commons. In the same way, if the Government are not to surrender powers to the mayor, the mayor can receive powers only from the boroughs. The boroughs are the check on the mayor, and will provide scrutiny of the mayor. That will necessarily involve tension, but that is no disadvantage in comparison with what the Government propose. Tension can be highly productive.
Thirdly, there is an old saying that it is sensible to turn poachers into gamekeepers. The Government's proposition in the previous set of amendments was that a gamekeeper should be turned into a poacher in the form of the deputy mayor. Whether that is sensible, I doubt. We shall later analyse the assembly's powers to hold the mayor to account, and I shall be surprised if those powers turn out to be other than fairly sparse.
Fourthly, it is paradoxical that the Government are seeking in many other ways to devolve powers to local authorities. In the context of the government of London,


the Government expressed enthusiasm in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for the idea of involving local authorities in working with the police on better policing and on prevention of crime. That is good, but the logic is that the consultative responsibility for the police should be taken down to local authority level, and that is a subject that we may consider later in the Bill's passage. It is curious that all sorts of matters are being moved towards local authorities, but that the London local authority is not considered appropriate to fulfil the role for which the amendment presses.
Finally, the Association of London Government has been kind enough to send all hon. Members advice on the clauses before us. It states:
In particular, the Association wishes to ensure that there are adequate arrangements for involving borough councillors in the activities of the new authority and its functional bodies where appropriate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South for having devised an amendment that responds so admirably to that desire.

Mrs. Lait: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, because Bromley was the borough that took on the Greater London council's "Fares Fair" policy. Residents of Bromley still have concerns about the possible overweening power of an elected authority over the borough. The assembly will be responsible for transport, and that includes the underground. There are, of course, no tube stations in Bromley, and residents will closely examine any expenditure on the tube in case it disadvantages Bromley in any way.
That is one reason why I support the amendment to allow representatives of the local authorities to make up the assembly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) drew a parallel with the role of Members of the European Parliament and the way in which their interests are parochial when they wish to get into the local paper. There is a further parallel with the Council of Ministers, which is made up of elected Members of Parliament who become Ministers who are nominated to sit on the relevant Council. The amendment is precisely analogous.
I stand to be corrected, but I am not aware of the Labour party having put forward proposals to amend the treaty of Rome to change the system of the Council of Ministers. I should feel more convinced of the Government's desire to have an elected assembly if they would move towards an elected Council of Ministers in Europe, which would be an interesting constitutional upheaval. I shall go no further down that route, but I draw the parallel: the Council of Ministers is the authoritative body in the European Union, and if we are to have a truly authoritative body to run London, a nominated authority could be most effective in truly representing the voters and in knowing what the voters want.
I have lived both north and south of the river, and I can agree and disagree with what has been said about disagreements between the two. It all depends on what the issue is. To say blithely that there is no continuity of interests in the geographic areas around London is to fly in the face of reality. There is no reason why we cannot have a truly effective authority, which the Government want, by having a representative authority rather than an elected one.

Mr. Randall: The debate seems essentially to be about whether the emphasis of the strategic authority will be on constituency links, or, to put it in the more denigrating way that many hon. Members have put it, parochial matters. The Government appear to believe that the only way in which to make the authority strategic is to move away from the constituency link, although the directly elected members will, despite the largeness of their areas, retain a vestige of the link.
I fervently believe in the constituency link. It is important to Members of Parliament, and it would be equally so for members of the assembly. That is not so say that I, like other hon. Members, cannot take the strategic view—if that is the correct buzz word. To be more old-fashioned about it, I would say that I put my country first, then my constituency and then, somewhere lower, my party. I do not understand why representatives from the boroughs could not put London first, their boroughs second and their party interests at the bottom of the list.
I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I do not understand why the has-beens and the never-will-bes would be sent to such an important assembly. Occasionally, one is put on committees—I may have been on some myself—that are not necessarily for the high flyers and I am sure that I have a long and distinguished career ahead in such committees, but surely the boroughs will send their best people to ensure that they are represented in the way that they want.
Unlike some Labour Members, notably the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), I concede that there should be much debate on the subject. There is a measure of consensus. If the Government are so unhappy about having nominated representatives in the boroughs, perhaps they will consider the possibility of directly elected members to represent boroughs rather than those larger and strangely tied together areas. For that reason, if our amendment is not accepted, I hope that the Government will consider maintaining some stronger form of constituency link than is proposed because that is the very basis of our democracy here.

Ms Glenda Jackson: This has been a fascinating debate, with some remarkable contributions. The speech by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) was surprising. In the beginning, he said that the Opposition believe in a mayor, sliding over the fact that that was a major U-turn on the part of the Conservative party. In fairness however, he barely got into his stride when his right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) leapt to his feet. As a former Secretary of State for the Environment, he was much concerned at what he perceived to be a gross intrusion on the part of the mayor and the assembly in the boroughs' desires to create a strategy to remove their waste. He thought it appalling that individual boroughs should have to consider their neighbouring boroughs. That was from a member of a previous Administration who had permitted Westminster council to stop moving its waste by the River Thames and allowed it to move it by road with never a thought for the additional pollution that it put on the roads of Westminster's neighbouring boroughs. One reason why the boroughs welcome our proposal so warmly is because they and Londoners are crying out for a proper strategy for waste, recycling and improving our environment.
The basis of the argument put by the hon. Member for Croydon, South was that the best way to ensure that the assembly meets the needs of Londoners is to appoint one. Initially, he suggested the leaders of the 32 boroughs—I presume that he would have included the City of London, thus making it 33. He then changed to a representative of the boroughs, but proceeded to rubbish the boroughs—be they leaders, representatives or councillors. He was much exercised over a letter that my hon. Friend the Minister for London had occasion to read to the Committee, which he had received from our noble Friend Lord Harris and the Association of London Government.
7.45 pm
I trust that it will reassure the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) to hear that it was not this evening's amendments that occasioned the guard within the Bill to ensure that there is no conflict between the mayor, the assembly and the boroughs. The final paragraph of the letter from the ALG states:
Finally, we do not see the Assembly leading to conflict between the boroughs and the GLA. Our discussions with the Government leading up to the Bill have reassured us that the GLA is being designed to minimise conflict and to ensure collaboration. For instance, we particularly welcome the provisions of Clause 27, which prohibit the Mayor in becoming involved in key borough functions unless in co-operation".
The basic argument of the hon. Member for Croydon, South is that the Opposition want the boroughs to send a representative, not a leader, because it is the best way to ensure that the assembly best serves the interests of the people of London. However, he then rubbished individual boroughs. Haringey and Hammersmith featured in his contribution. He accused the letter of my noble Friend Lord Harris of demonstrating nothing more than cronyism. Indeed, he stated that the letter from the ALG was not worth the paper that it was printed on. I find it bizarre that someone who clearly holds the borough representatives in such low regard is arguing that those are the people who should automatically be appointed to an assembly.
The hon. Gentleman failed to touch on a particularly important point inasmuch as the Bill is about restoring a democratic voice to the people of London. The official Opposition's proposals would ignore the wishes of Londoners twice. In effect, they would ensure that their choice of borough representative would not be there to do the job that they had elected him or her to do. The proposals would also ignore the voice of Londoners in their directly elected mayor because an unelected assembly could scrutinise an elected mayor. That is hardly a democratic benefit; it is a democratic deficit twice.
The contributions from Conservative Back Benchers were infinitely more constructive than those of the hon. Member for Croydon, South. The amendments that he tabled would wreck the provisions of the Bill—provisions agreed by Parliament and endorsed by the people of London in a referendum held only nine months ago. The contributions of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) were particularly positive in that both were concerned, in essence, with what is central to our Bill—the good governance of London.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) also made a somewhat surprising contribution inasmuch as she supports the amendment. Yet, when we debated the possibility of an elected deputy mayor earlier—also an Opposition proposal—she argued that directly elected assembly men would be much too busy attempting to reply to their correspondence to constituents to be able truly to scrutinise the mayor's proposals and policies. Apparently, by supporting this amendment, she is perfectly prepared to put in assembly men who have no mandate from the people of London, but who would not be able to deal with their constituents in the boroughs to which they were directly elected.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) attaches importance to a constituency link. There will be constituencies; we have announced the new constituencies for which residents will vote for their assembly members. We are not attempting to mix and match or pour a quart into a pint pot, but proposing modern government of the sort that the people of London have shown, by their overwhelming support in the referendum, that they wish to have introduced.
The Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill contained the question on the ballot paper that was put to the people of London in the referendum. It was quite explicit and asked
Are you in favour of the government's proposals for a Greater London Authority, made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly?
Around 70 per cent. of those who voted in the referendum voted yes, and there was a clear yes vote in every London borough. It is astonishing that the Conservative Opposition, which supported a yes vote during the referendum and approved an elected assembly, should come forward with tired old arguments about having appointees rather than elected members. Is that really the new democracy for the new millennium that they seek to establish?
Several Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Gainsborough, mentioned parochialism. Some felt that the authority would not play its proper part. The point is that the GLA will be a strategic authority concerned with matters that affect the whole of London. I touched lightly on the environment and a proper strategic waste disposal plan, and explained how one borough's actions can adversely affect the lives of people in neighbouring boroughs. That does not mean that the GLA will be unconcerned by issues that arise in individual boroughs or groups of boroughs but that, under the Bill, the GLA cannot ride roughshod over the interests of the boroughs or the decisions that they take. The boroughs do not therefore need to be represented on the GLA.
As a strategic authority, it is essential that the GLA should focus on broad, Londonwide issues. Borough council members are elected to represent the views, and promote the interests, of their boroughs, but sometimes a broader perspective is necessary. It is that broader perspective that directly elected list members of the assembly will be expected to provide. The borough councils will of course continue to have a major part to play in the governance of London. Their role is carefully safeguarded by the Bill. They, if not the Conservative party, have recognised that the GLA is not a threat to them. I quoted the final paragraph of the letter from


the Association of London Government. Indeed, the ALG's briefing on the Bill states:
The ALG supports this major initiative to give Londoners an elected Mayor and Assembly".
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) made several points in response to the Conservative amendments that chimed closely with our responses. He noted that the strategic nature of our proposals is essential. He inquired why there was no requirement on the mayor and assembly to have a strategic overview of health. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) touched on some of the reasons. There is a requirement in the Bill that the mayor must improve the health of Londoners, but that is part and parcel of the other strategic policies that the mayor and assembly will introduce.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton discerned a lack of democracy in our national health service. I am sure that he knows of the announcement made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health in which he listed in no small detail the true democratic perspective that will be brought to bear in respect of our NHS and our NHS trusts. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that he wants social services and health departments to work more closely together for the benefit of our constituents. The Government have already begun to put that in place. The most recent standard spending assessment settlement has done precisely that.
I found the Liberal Democrat amendments surprising. An assembly of 40 members is not what Londoners voted for. They backed our proposals for a small, streamlined assembly of 25 members. We intend to deliver for Londoners their wishes, as endorsed by the referendum. That is not through any concern about press comment, whether adverse or pro. We have said all along, in the Green Paper, the White Paper and in the Bill, that the assembly needs to be small, streamlined and strategic in focus. We think that 40 members would far too many. An assembly of 25 members will be large enough to allow it to perform its essential scrutiny and investigative roles without becoming unwieldy and unnecessarily bureaucratic. Its size will allow it to take a strategic view rather than a parochial one, which would lead to competition with the boroughs.
The Liberal Democrats may have proposed a larger assembly because they want it, rather than the mayor, to perform executive functions. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton mentioned that point. To set his mind at rest, let me say that Transport for London is an executive arm of the mayor and assembly, not a body that will discuss what is required for London transport. It does not require membership from the boroughs because it will put in place the policies that the mayor will have campaigned on and that have been validated by the people of London. The Liberal Democrats clearly think that a larger body is needed, but we think that their proposals are a recipe for bigger, more bureaucratic government with more committees and, inevitably, less efficiency. In his typically robust and entertaining contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) shared his interpretation of precisely why the Liberal Democrats propose a larger assembly.
Londoners want action. They backed our proposals for a directly elected mayor coupled with an assembly, thus ensuring that the mayor's activities are open

and accountable, because they want action taken in the areas of particular concern to all Londoners. If hon. Members consider the detail of the Liberal Democrat proposals, they will recognise that there is little logical in them. Why have 23 constituency members? I can at least understand—although I do not agree with it—the rationale for an assembly of 33 members, one for each London borough and one the for the City, or for our proposal for 14 constituency members under which we can combine two or three boroughs to form constituencies.
The Liberal Democrat proposals could require boroughs to be divided up into new constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich pressed hard to find out who the Liberal Democrats thought representatives for such constituencies would be speaking for. It is an unnecessary and impractical proposal. Londoners could find themselves voting in an entirely new electoral area that was not a borough, an easily recognisable combination of boroughs or a parliamentary constituency but yet another electoral unit. That would produce confusion and severe irritation.
If the amendments were accepted, they would be likely to delay the elections. The Local Government Commission would need to conduct a further review of constituencies, scrapping the thorough work that it has just completed which produced recommendations that have attracted little criticism. A new review would be particularly complex and controversial because the commission would be asked how best to divide up boroughs to create wholly new units. That is a recipe for delay and confusion. The Government believe that a directly elected assembly of 25 members is right for London; it was certainly backed by London. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

8 pm

Mr. Brake: I shall briefly pick out a number of the points made by the Minister. She said that Londoners did not vote for 40 assembly members. That is true, but they were not given that choice. If the assembly were to have 23 constituency members, there would be no need to split boroughs as it would be entirely possible to have an arrangement based on boroughs or parliamentary constituencies.
The Minister referred to Transport for London, and we shall return to that matter at another time. However, I am surprised that the Government have chosen to exclude every single assembly member from Transport for London, as I would have thought that assembly members would have a view about transport in London and would have some interesting points to make to that body.
The Minister has failed to respond to Liberal Democrat concern that only 25 assembly members might not have sufficient time to respond to Londonwide issues, to their constituencies, and to the demands of their committees. Many hon. Members will be aware that councils have difficulty in ensuring attendance at meetings and, if the assembly has only a small number of members, there might be difficulties in ensuring that there is adequate representation and adequate consideration.

Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman talks about assembly members not having sufficient time, but his analogy is somewhat inaccurate: assembly members will be full-time members.

Mr. Brake: I thank the Minister for that intervention. However, she must also be aware that there will be


considerable demands on the assembly members because of the sizes of their constituencies and because the members will be a focus for many organisations. The hon. Lady laughs, but I am sure that she accepts that my point is correct. Will the Government reconsider the issue of the number of assembly members and consider whether an expansion of that number would not best serve the interests of Londoners?

Mr. Ottaway: The debate has been a bit of a landmark for me, because the forthright speech of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) resulted in something on which I could agree with him: his views on the Liberal Democrats.
After 25 minutes, I understood the drift of the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey): he was trying to argue that a member elected by proportional representation could speak up for his constituency. We look forward to hearing how that argument develops.
I was especially grateful for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). When he and I were in the same association, plotting our political careers in the 1970s, it seemed that his ambitions would inevitably lead him to the Greater London council. For a Conservative Member, his speech was a bit off message, but he was right to highlight the problems that the assembly would inevitably face and he made a thoughtful and welcome contribution.
We heard excellent speeches from other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) reached the wrong conclusion for the wrong reasons, but it was a worthy effort. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) was right to warn of the inevitable temptation for an assembly member to speak up for his or her own patch. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) drew an interesting parallel between the amendment and the Council of Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) correctly said that the boroughs would make their best proposals in any assembly of borough representatives.
In her speech, the Minister referred, yet again, to the famous letter from Lord Harris, drawing attention to the fact that he did not think that the assembly would lead to conflict with the boroughs. However, Conservative Members made the point that Lord Harris did not fully consult the Association of London Government and that the letter does not reflect the views of the London boroughs, as was shown by the survey that was taken.

Mr. Raynsford: A year ago.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister says, yet again, that it was a year ago, but I repeat what I told him on Second Reading that, bless its cotton socks, the Labour party has changed its mind on every fundamental issue of the past decade. It takes the biscuit for him to say that the London borough leaders have changed their minds in the past 12 months.
The amendment would allow the London boroughs to be involved, right up to the hilt, in the Greater London authority. If the Government reject the amendment,

they will be telling the boroughs that they do not trust the boroughs to make the right decision. The Conservative party will continue to speak up for the London boroughs for a long time to come. We are not satisfied with the Minister's response and we wish to press the amendment to a division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 115, Noes 339.

Division No. 38]
[8.6 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Amess, David
Lansley, Andrew


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Leigh, Edward


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Lidington, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Bercow, John
Luff, Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Boswell, Tim
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Madel, Sir David


Brazier, Julian
Malins, Humfrey


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Mates, Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Burns, Simon
Moss, Malcolm


Cash, William
Norman, Archie


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Ottaway, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Page, Richard


Clappison, James
Paice, James


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Paterson, Owen


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Pickles, Eric


Colvin, Michael
Prior, David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Randall, John


Cran, James
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Robathan, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Evans, Nigel
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Faber, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Flight, Howard 
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Forth, Rt Hon Eric 
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fox, Dr Liam
Soames, Nicholas


Gale, Roger
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Garnier, Edward
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gibb, Nick
Spring, Richard


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Steen, Anthony


Gray, James
Streeter, Gary


Green, Damian
Swayne, Desmond


Greenway, John
Syms, Robert


Grieve, Dominic
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hawkins, Nick
Townend, John


Hayes, John
Trend, Michael


Heald, Oliver
Tyrie, Andrew


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Viggers, Peter


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Walter, Robert


Horam, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Willetts, David


Hunter, Andrew
Wishire, David


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Yeo, Tim


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Key, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Mr. Stephen Day and


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Mr. Tim Collins.






NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cooper, Yvette


Ainger, Nick
Corbett, Robin


Alexander, Douglas
Corbyn, Jeremy


Allan, Richard
Corston, Ms Jean


Allen, Graham
Cotter, Brian


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cousins, Jim


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cranston, Ross


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cummings, John


Atkins, Charlotte
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Austin, John
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Baker, Norman
Dalyell, Tam


Banks, Tony
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Barnes, Harry
Darvill, Keith


Barron, Kevin
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Battle, John
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Begg, Miss Anne
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Denham, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dismore, Andrew


Bennett, Andrew F
Donohoe, Brian H


Benton, Joe
Doran, Frank


Berry, Roger
Dowd, Jim


Best, Harold
Drown, Ms Julia


Betts, Clive
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blackman, Liz
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Blizzard, Bob
Edwards, Huw


Boateng, Paul
Efford, Clive


Borrow, David
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brake, Tom
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brand, Dr Peter
Fisher, Mark


Breed, Colin
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Flint, Caroline


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Flynn, Paul


Browne, Desmond
Follett, Barbara


Buck, Ms Karen
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burden, Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Burnett, John
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Burstow, Paul
Fyfe, Maria


Butler, Mrs Christine
Galbraith, Sam


Caborn, Richard
Galloway, George


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Godsiff, Roger


Caplin, Ivor
Goggins, Paul


Casale, Roger
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grocott, Bruce


Clapham, Michael
Grogan, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gunnell, John


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hain, Peter


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hancock, Mike


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Harris, Dr Evan


Clwyd, Ann
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coaker, Vernon
Healey, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Coleman, Iain
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Colman, Tony
Hepburn, Stephen


Connarty, Michael
Heppell, John



Hesford, Stephen





Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hill, Keith
Miller, Andrew


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mitchell, Austin


Home Robertson, John
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howells, Dr Kim
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mudie, George


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mullin, Chris


Humble, Mrs Joan
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hurst, Alan
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Norris, Dan


Illsley, Eric
Oaten, Mark


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Neill, Martin


Jamieson, David
Öpik, Lembit


Jenkins, Brian
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pond, Chris


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Pound, Stephen


Keeble, Ms Sally
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keetch, Paul
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kemp, Fraser
Prosser, Gwyn


Khabra, Piara S
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kidney, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Kilfoyle, Peter
Radice, Giles


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rapson, Syd


Kingham, Ms Tess
Raynsford, Nick


Kirkwood, Archy
Rendel, David


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Laxton, Bob
Rooker, Jeff


Leslie, Christopher
Rooney, Terry


Levitt, Tom
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Roy, Frank


Linton, Martin
Ruane, Chris


Livingstone, Ken
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Livsey, Richard
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lock, David
Salter, Martin


McAllion, John
Sanders, Adrian


McAvoy, Thomas
Savidge, Malcolm


McCabe, Steve
Sawford, Phil


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonagh, Siobhain
Shaw, Jonathan


Macdonald, Calum
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McDonnell, John
Shipley, Ms Debra


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McIsaac, Shona
Singh, Marsha


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Skinner, Dennis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marek, Dr John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Snape, Peter


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Martlew, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stevenson, George


Meale, Alan
Stewart, David (Inverness E)



Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Merron, Gillian
Stinchcombe, Paul






Stoate, Dr Howard
Watts, David


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Webb, Steve


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Welsh, Andrew


Stringer, Graham
White, Brian


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stunell, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Swinney, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Willis, Phil


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilson, Brian


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Winnick, David


Timms, Stephen
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Tipping, Paddy
Wise, Audrey


Trickett, Jon
Wood, Mike


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Woolas, Phil


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Worthington, Tony


Tyler, Paul
Wray, James


Vaz, Keith
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Vis, Dr Rudi
Tellers for the Noes:


Walley, Ms Joan
Jane Kennedy and


Wareing, Robert N
Mr. Mike Hall.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 2, line 2, leave out from 'members' to end of line 6 and insert
'representing the multi-member constituencies determined by the Local Government Commission under subsection (4) below.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 22, in page 2, line 7, after 'be', insert 'more than'.
No. 74, in page 2, line 15, after 'Mayor', insert 'and'.
No. 75, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'and the London members'.
No. 76, in page 2, line 18, leave out 'or the London members'.
No. 79, in page 2, leave out line 21.
No. 25, in page 2, line 21, leave out from 'of to second `the' in line 22.
No. 34, in clause 4, page 3, line 35, leave out from 'constituency' to end of line 37.
No. 39, in page 4, leave out line 2 and insert
'by single transferable vote as set out in Part IAAA to Schedule 2 of this Act'.
No. 38, in page 4, line 2, at end insert
'unless there are three or more candidates.
(4A) If there are three or more candidates in an Assembly constituency—

(a) the constituency member shall be returned under the alternative vote system in accordance with Part IA of Schedule 2 to this Act;
(b) a voter's constituency vote shall accordingly be an alternative vote, that is to say, a vote capable of being given to indicate the voter's preferences from among the candidates.'.


No. 10, in page 4, leave out lines 3 to 18.
No. 40, in page 4, line 4, after first 'a', insert
'candidate who is a member of a'.
No. 41, in page 4, line 5, at end insert—
'(b) a candidate on the list which has been submitted by a registered political party; or'.

No. 42, in page 4, leave out lines 9 to 13 and insert—
'(7) The person who is to be returned as Mayor shall be determined before it is determined who are to be returned as the Assembly members.'.
No. 43, in page 4, leave out lines 14 to 18.
No. 11, in page 4, leave out lines 24 and 25.
No. 44, in schedule 1, page 141, leave out line 25.
No. 29, in page 141, leave out lines 26 and 27.
No. 30, in page 141, leave out lines 31 and 32.
No. 46, in schedule 2, page 143, line 21, at end insert—'PART IAA—

RETURN OF CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS FOLLOWING A VACANCY

Application

1. This Part of this Schedule applies where there are three or more candidates in an Assembly constituency.

Candidate with overall majority of first preference votes

2. If one of the candidates to be a constituency member receives more than half of all the first preference votes given in the Assembly constituency that candidate shall be returned as the constituency member for that Assembly constituency.

No candidate with overall majority of first preference votes

3.—(1) If none of the candidates to be the constituency member receives more than half of all the first preference votes given in the Assembly constituency, the following provisions of this paragraph shall have effect.

(2) The candidate with the fewest number of first preference votes is eliminated, and the second preference votes given for that candidate shall be ascertained.

(3) The second preference votes under subsection (2) above shall be transferred to the other candidates, being added to the first preference votes cast for the other candidates.

(4) If, following the recalculation under subsection (3) above, none of the candidates receives more than half of the votes, the remaining candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated and the process in subsections (2) and (3) above is carried out.

(5) The process continues until one candidate has received more than half of all the votes, and that person shall be returned as the constituency member for that Assembly constituency.

(6) If, by reason of an equality of total number of preference votes, two or more candidates remaining in the contest each have the greatest total number of preference votes, the constituency returning officer shall decide by lots which of them is to be returned as the constituency member for that Assembly constituency.'.

No. 47, in page 43, line 21, at end insert—PART IAAA—

RETURN OF CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS

Each vote shall have a single transferable vote, that is to say a vote—

(a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's order of preference for the candidates for election as members for the constituency, and
(b) capable of being transferred to the next choice—

(i) when the vote is not required to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or
(ii) when, owing to the deficiency in the number of votes given for a prior choice, that choice is eliminated from the list of candidates'.

No. 52, in page 143, line 21, at end insert—'PART IA—

RETURN OF CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS

Application

1. This Part of this Schedule applies where there are three or more candidates in an Assembly constituency.

Candidate with overall majority of first preference votes

2. If one of the candidates to be a constituency member receives more than half of all the first preference votes given in the Assembly constituency that candidate shall be returned as the constituency member for that Assembly constituency.

No candidate with overall majority of first preference votes

3.—(1) If none of the candidates to be the constituency member receives more than half of all the first preference votes given in the Assembly constituency, the following provisions of this paragraph shall have effect.

(2) The candidate with the fewest number of first preference votes is eliminated, and the second preference votes given for that candidate shall be ascertained.

(3) The second preference votes under subsection (2) above shall be transferred to the other candidates, being added to the first preference votes cast for the other candidates.

(4) If, following the recalculation under subsection (3) above, none of the candidates receives more than half of the votes, the remaining candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated and the proceed in subsections (2) and (3) above is carried out.

(5) The process continues until one candidate has received more than half of all the votes, and that person shall be returned as the constancy member for that Assembly constituency.

(6) If, by reason of an equality of total number of preference votes, two or more candidates remaining in the contest each have the greatest total number of preference votes, the constituency returning officer shall decide by lots which of them is to be returned as the constituency member for that Assembly constituency.'.

No. 49, in page 143, leave out from beginning of line 22 to end of line 25 on page 145.

No. 53, in page 144, line 5, after 'constituencies', insert
'with votes for candidates listed as members of a registered party counting towards the total vote of that party'.

No. 54, in page 145, line 3, leave out from 'filled' to end of line 4 and insert—
'as follows:

(a) A quota shall be determined which is equal to the total number of votes polled for all the parties divided by the number of seats to be allocated plus one.
(b) Votes cast for the candidate at the top of the party list shall be compared with the number of votes cast for the registered party to which that candidate belongs.
(c) Where the candidate has fewer votes than the quota, the votes for that candidate will then be topped up to reach the quota using votes from the party vote, reducing the number of votes won by the party accordingly.
(d) This process continues for each candidate on the list until the party votes have been exhausted, except where there are insufficient votes in the party vote to top up a candidate, in which case those votes are allocated to the next person on the list with sufficient votes, who moves one place up the list.'.

No. 55, in page 145, line 3, leave out from 'filled' to end of line 4 and insert
'in the order of votes cast for the candidates of that party, with the candidate receiving the highest number of votes being elected first.'.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said that the list of

amendments sounds like the London bus timetable and the Minister for London and Construction—if I interpreted his lip movements correctly—said that he hoped that I knew all the amendments by heart.
This collection of amendments—which are taken together for the convenience of the Committee and are, apart from the occasional insertion from the Conservatives, Liberal Democrat amendments—refers to the electoral system. There would not be a debate about structures of government in this country without debates about electoral systems.

Mr. Forth: There would be if the hon. Gentleman was not here.

Mr. Hughes: I do not think that that is true, although the right hon. Gentleman might like it to be true. I do not know what his view is, because he is always a maverick, but even his party wants to change the electoral system.
I shall first issue a disclaimer to the Committee. As I have said before, I am not obsessive about electoral systems or electoral reform. I do not hold the view that there is a perfect electoral system in the world, nor do I think that there is an absolutely imperfect electoral system. All electoral systems are better or worse than one another. We have to select one according to a combination of the wisdom of experience and the objectives for which we set up elected bodies in this country.
I shall describe the amendments—I need not do so at length, but different amendments have been grouped together. I shall then argue that there is a strong case, even at this stage in the proceedings, for reconsidering the electoral system that the Government have chosen to put before the Committee.
After about 18 months of this Administration, we come to this debate with interesting recent experience which is relevant to the issue. Liberal Democrat Members welcome the new Government's willingness to be much more open-minded than their predecessors about constitutional matters. It is interesting that now that the Conservative party is in opposition and has no Members of Parliament in Scotland or Wales, a gradual conversion is taking place among Conservative Members.
I did not leave the Committee during the previous debate to listen to a lecture, apparently entitled, "The British Way", which may have been given elsewhere in the City of Westminster. However, I understand that even the person who may have given that lecture now accepts that the most recent election was a watershed, and that the Conservatives have to move on and realise that the old order is changing and giving way to a new order.
We welcome the Government's clear commitment—which we helped them to make when they were in opposition—to reconsider electoral systems. We are looking forward to changes in those systems in Scotland to govern the first elections to the Scottish Parliament and, in Wales, for elections to the Assembly. We welcome both of those innovations. Last year, a new electoral system was used for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, which we also welcomed.
There are interesting differences between all those systems and organisations. The Scottish Parliament system was the result of a consultative process. There were meetings between the Labour party, the Scottish National party, my party and, at the beginning,


the Conservative party. Not all the parties stayed the course; some withdrew. The trade unions and Churches were also involved. There was an attempt to come to an agreement in the Scottish convention. The electoral system in Scotland is the product of that. When we debated the Scotland Bill in the House and in Committee, we supported the proposals that we had agreed to in the convention.
The difference between Scotland, which has a proportional system, and London is that we have not had such a convention in London. I slightly regret the fact that the Government did not see fit to hold a pre-legislative convention to find out what agreement there was. We must all take partial responsibility for that failure. I recognise that there was a Green Paper containing proposals that marked a change in the Government's position.
The Welsh Assembly will also be elected using a proportional system. That proposal did not arise from a convention—the Government were persuaded of the merit of the case. The system chosen was not the one that we would have devised, but it is certainly better than the system that the Government inherited in Great Britain generally.
No one disputes the fact that the proportional representation system that was adopted and implemented for the Northern Ireland Assembly was the only way to secure people's participation in the electoral process. One hopes that has been a contributory factor in paving the way towards the resolution of Northern Ireland's conflicts, which have gone on for a long time. The postscript to that point is that Northern Ireland has for some time had a system based on electoral reform and one other than first past the post. Like the Irish republic, Northern Ireland has found that reform convenient and helpful.
That is the recent history of legislation for domestic representative bodies. Just before Christmas, we debated the final chapter of that legislation—the electoral system for the European Parliament. Again, to their credit, the Government changed their position and accepted that a proportional system should be used. After much huffing and puffing and an attempt at the other end of the corridor to blow the House down, it was accepted that the democratically elected, representative House should prevail, and there will now be a proportional system of election for the European Parliament.
That debate has a subplot, which will be raised in reference to the amendments. If a proportional system incorporates a list system, should one have the famous open list or the closed list? The experts will say that there are many subplots. Belgium has produced a version of the list system. Chocolates, chips and electoral systems are clearly the products of that fine kingdom. There are d'Hondt versions and many others.
The basic question for a simple person like me is whether to have an open list, which means that people can choose the position of candidates on the list, or a closed list, in which people can take or leave those positions. Liberal Democrat Members have always argued that, in a list system, it is always better to give people freedom of choice so that the party does not impose its choice.
We have made progress. In all the electoral legislation discussed in this Parliament, the Government have introduced a proportional system. We welcome that. The respective systems are not the same, but that is not inappropriate for two obvious reasons. First, self-evidently, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are different, and elections for a European Parliament are for a different kind of body.
Secondly, the argument that the system in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales must be used in London does not apply because unless electors in London very cleverly arrange their affairs, they do not have a vote in elections in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. The existence of another system in one of the other three countries in the United Kingdom is not an argument for having a similar system in London.
As for London, I pay tribute to the Government, the Secretary of State, who is absent but who is responsible for the Bill, and his Ministers. When we started the debate on London, there was no commitment to proportional representation. It was an open question and the Government consulted on it. They then listened to the overwhelming response of the respondents—many were not political parties or members of political parties, but included lay organisations as well as those concerned with elections—which was that London needed a proportional system.
It is a good thing that the Greater London assembly, whatever its size—a subject that we have just debated—will have a political proportionality. That is welcome for one overriding reason, namely that London is a very large electoral village as well as being the capital city. It contains communities that are very different, geographically and in terms of background. In order to have a spread of representation, we have to make sure that two things happen.
First, as was said earlier today, we must ensure that the voice of the Kent part of London, the Surrey part of London, the Hertfordshire part of London, the Essex part of London as well as that of the old Middlesex part of London—the largest component—is heard and is heard in different ways. The Minister and I both live south of the river but where he lives, people's county cricket team is Kent whereas mine is Surrey, and across the river people's county cricket team is Middlesex. All these people who are part of Greater London must have their important history reflected.
8.30 pm
Secondly, a proportional system—the better the proportionality, the better the system—will allow the creation of an assembly that is balanced in terms of gender and background. For example, the large black community should be able to have black representatives, and the many Asian people in London, some of whom have been citizens here for two, three or four generations, should be able to identify with representatives from the same cultural background. None of us would deny that the objective of the system must be to ensure that the cosmopolitan basis of London is represented.
Ideally, we want a system that allows people to choose not only between parties but within parties, and to choose individuals who are not members of any party. I hope that one of the results of this exercise will be the election of some independents. The hon. Member for Tatton


(Mr. Bell) has shown what a great contribution an Independent can make to a legislative and deliberative assembly. Others have done the same—A. P. Herbert is one who springs to mind from my reading of contributions over the years.
Voters should be able to choose between people in the parties. I hope that we maximise the opportunity for that. For example, a Conservative voter in an outer-London borough, or in my borough, might want to make sure that there are more women in politics. It might be something about which that voter feels strongly, and he should be allowed to say that he would rather have a woman represent him than a man. A young voter might think that there should be more young people in politics. He might not have made up his mind what party he supports, but if he finds a young candidate who seems to be on the ball, he might vote accordingly.
People might also vote for a candidate according to experience and profession. A trade unionist might think it important to elect someone who got his hands dirty doing real work rather than someone who has been only a manager or an administrator. I met people from the pensioners lobby today—I am sure that they will say it is important to include some pensioners in the assembly. Those are our objectives. Before dealing directly with the amendment, I wanted to outline the common ground that exists between us and our common desire to make sure that, whatever disagreements we may have about how we get there, we end up with a body that commands the confidence of people from Bromley to Barnet and the confidence of people of all ages, cultures and ethnic backgrounds.

Mr. Forth: In the context of the desirability of independent members, on which the hon. Gentleman lays great stress, has he considered the implications of clause 11(2)? With reference to the filling of vacancies, it states:
If the London member was returned as an individual candidate…the vacancy shall remain unfilled until the next ordinary election.
That means that if in the London party elections the hon. Gentleman and I elect a sturdily independent candidate who is not on a party list, and if that candidate then resigns or—heaven forbid—dies in office, we risk that vacancy remaining unfilled and our being left unrepresented. If my reading of the subsection is correct, is not it a disincentive to vote for a sturdily independent candidate?

Mr. Hughes: Although I do not want to be tempted too far down the road that leads to a subsequent debate, I shall deal with that point.
I understand why the clause is drafted as it is. The Government have distinguished, as they must, between a person who stands on a party ticket, on a list, and a person who is elected as a cross-London member, as an individual, who, by definition, has no one in the same party as him or her. If an elected party member dies or resigns, the list system not only in this country but worldwide provides that the next person named on the list gets in. People understand that in advance; they know that, if a party gains five seats, they get the first five people on the list, and that, if a vacancy arises, they get the sixth. However, a practical difficulty arises when an independent member is lost.
I share the view of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that the right answer is not to leave a vacancy. I hope that, when we come to the wider debate, we shall find ways of holding an election to fill the vacancy because I agree that it is unfair that, if we end up with a London assembly of 25 members with one or two independents and one of the latter dies or resigns—perhaps for unavoidable family reasons—we shall lose that independent voice for the rest of that assembly's life. That assembly may sit, however, for four or five years. If we lose an independent member, we should have the chance to elect another independent candidate, as a result of a proper election.

Mr. Forth: It is worse than that. If several members elected from a list resigned and there were not sufficient names on the list to fill the vacancies, would not another electoral embarrassment be in store for those who support such an electoral arrangement?

Mr. Hughes: That is true, and we shall return to that subject, but, unless something very funny happens, I do not anticipate that we shall have a situation such as the one that we had in this place some years ago, when most of the Northern Ireland Members resigned and by-elections were held. Considering the crude politics of it, I believe that there would be pressure from the parties to ensure that large-scale resignations should not take place. Let us consider those perfectly proper issues.
In the full submission that Liberal Democrat Members and representatives in London made to the Green Paper, we argued that the electoral system should follow three principles: fairness to all voters; real natural constituencies; and genuine voter choice. I would argue that the best way of achieving that—not the only way, not something that makes all the other options impossible—is to have the famous single transferable vote. I say that not because we, as a party, have become wedded to that system, picked off the shelf, irrespective of anything else—I believe that we have shown ourselves to be as pragmatic as others—but because all the evidence is that it produces the best choice for the voter, and the most accurate reflection of differences of view.
If an election were held today, according to a proportional system, and if voters followed the voting patterns reflected in the results of the most recent general election, the Labour party would return 12 of the 25 members of the assembly and the other parties would return the remaining 13. Labour would not have a majority in the assembly: no one party would have a majority. When the GLC existed, there was always a three-way split in London politics. Happily, our party has grown; others—naming no names—have diminished more recently, but London has very rarely had a majority of the voters turning out for one party, so there has always been a balance. We therefore seek an electoral system that gives the most accurate balance—because then the system does not distort the conclusion—and voter choice.
As was said in the previous debate, we strongly argue that an advantage of the single transferable vote system is that it allows the reflection of natural geographic communities, especially in outer boroughs. My hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), who represent the borough of Sutton, and my hon. Friends who represent the boroughs of Richmond


and Kingston feel very strongly that their communities need to be represented. I strongly share that view. It would have been better, and it would have locked in more strongly people's commitment to the electoral process, if, for example, those parts of London that are Kent had seen themselves as one community, electing four, five or six members, who would then speak collectively, across the party divide, for the Kent part of London.
As I have said, we support the proposition that it should be possible to choose between candidates in the same party. I pray in aid the support of the Institute for Public Policy and Research, which is more closely affiliated with the Labour party than others, for our argument that the best option is the single transferable vote. At the end of December 1997, it said in response to the paper on the Greater London authority:
We therefore recommend that the single transferable vote system be implemented in five 5-member constituencies. The advantages are that this would signal a commitment to a more inclusive style of politics, and should contribute to the emergence of an assembly which reflects the diversity of London's population.
STV is used in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, and we believe that it would be the best system for London.
Because we are pragmatists, realists and do not always get what we want—some would argue that a pedigree in the Liberal party means getting used occasionally to not getting what one wants—we have, however, produced alternatives for the Committee to consider. If the Government are not willing to accept our first choice, we offer them a second one, in amendments Nos. 38 and 52, which we hope they will accept.
In amendments Nos. 38 and 52, we suggest that those whom the Government call constituency members—people from the proposed 14 geographical areas, the boundaries for which the Minister has confirmed today—should be elected not by first past the post but by the alternative vote. We then suggest that that should be topped up, becoming a system that has recently become known as the alternative vote plus.
The alternative vote plus has gained credibility since this Parliament began. As a result of its deliberations, the commission that the Government set up on electoral systems for this place has put on the table for public debate and consideration in the House—it must therefore be a valid proposition—a similar system for London, too. The alternative vote plus was recommended by the Jenkins commission in the autumn.
I understand—it is obvious—that the Jenkins commission was set up too late to influence the Green Paper and the White Paper on London. It is therefore no criticism of the Government that they have not picked up its idea. However, I would be grateful if the Minister at least indicated that the Government do not rule out the idea that such a system has merit for London, too. I hope that that will find appeal, and that the Government will say that it is as good a system as any other. As one of the five people who represented the views of Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats Members to the Jenkins commission, and having been sceptical about whether it would come up with an appealing system, I think that it has very cleverly and reasonably met hon. Members' objectives of constituency links and proportionality.
It is important—I want the Minister specifically to reply to this—to grasp the nettle of the open list rather than the closed list. The Government propose 11 members elected by lists. All our parties are beginning to ratchet up the process of choosing their representatives for such lists. I think that all our electors resent a little the fact that, in order to influence that process, one must be a member of a political party. Most people in London are not members of any political party. Indeed, with respect to us all, most people have no desire to be so. I do not blame them for that in the slightest.
Members feel very strongly about individuals. One of the banes of our life in debating London government over recent months is that the press, because they think that it is what the public want, speculate far more about who will be in power in London than what they will do. The press spend far more time on who will be the candidates than on what their policies are, but the level of road charges and parking charges will be much more important to Londoners than who is running the city. The policies matter much more than the personalities, although obviously the two go together.
8.45 pm
People like to make a choice. If we present to Londoners a list chosen by our parties, however clever we think we may be, and if we do not give Londoners the chance to say, "I like your team, but I think that person is rubbish and should be at the bottom of the list", we will curtail the debate, the influence and the participation.
Many people might vote because one of the people on the list is their mate, or their former local councillor or the person who led their borough council, or their former Member of Parliament, or someone whom they respect as running a big local business or charity, or someone to whom they can relate, such as a sports personality. However, if they cannot influence whether that person is at the top of the list or at the bottom, they might simply stay at home. I am at one with the Government in wanting to increase participation in elections, so that the result reflects the views and interests of as many people as possible.
We have a preferred choice, which is an alternative to the Government's proposal and allows proportionality by the best system—the single transferable vote. If that is not acceptable, we have a fallback, but we have a keen desire to get the Government to agree to an open-list system, not a closed-list system.
This is an important debate, not because it provides excitement for people who analyse electoral systems every time we debate representative government, but because if we want to allow independents to be elected, and members of parties such as the Green party to be committed to the election and to propose policies, and if we want to maximise the political and democratic input into London, we shall do that best by choosing the electoral process that maximises participation and voter choice. I hope that, by the end of the debate, we shall have moved further along that road, and that the Government, who have already moved a long way, will have moved a little further towards the best electoral system available.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 10 and 11, the force of which


is to propose that all members of the Greater London assembly should be elected on the first-past-the-post system. Because of the way in which the amendments have been grouped, we shall seek to divide the Committee on amendments Nos. 10 and 11 at another time that is acceptable to the Committee.
On Second Reading on 14 December last year, I pointed out, and it was not denied by the Government, that the Bill introduces what is essentially an experimental form of new government for our capital city. Because of London's national and international significance, it is crucial that the experiment should be made to work. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State was at pains to emphasise that he would take careful notice of the issues of concern raised then and subsequently, during the Bill's passage through Parliament.
Notwithstanding our views about the composition of the assembly, which the Government do not accept, amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would insert into that massive experiment at least a method of electing the members of the new assembly that is tried and tested, and which can deliver accountable and transparent government.
I listened with great care and even greater interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He explained his party's interest in electoral systems, which he proved this evening by proposing no fewer than four different systems for Londoners to experience. Because of the complexity that he and his party seek to introduce into the matter, we shall vote against the group of amendments that the hon. Gentleman moved. We believe strongly that Londoners need an electoral system for the assembly and also for the mayor—we shall discuss that tomorrow—that can deliver decisive and effective government for the capital.
We are increasingly concerned by the steady step-by-step move away from the constituency basis of our democracy. We are concerned about the unrealistically large constituencies proposed by the Government for the constituency assembly members. Did we hear a change of heart from the Liberal Democrats on the question of open and closed lists? I rather think we did—well, perhaps not a change of heart, but a change in voting intention. However, the combination of large constituencies, proportional representation and the closed-list system represents a move away from the simple accountability and transparency of the first-past-the-post system, which has given the country strong, accountable and decisive administrations at local and national government level for so long.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Lady was not being unfair or unreasonable, but just so that there is no misunderstanding among those who read our debates, I should say that there is no change in the Liberal Democrats' position on the list system. During the famous debates before Christmas, our preference was always for open lists. In the end, we compromised and agreed that it was better to have closed lists than no proportional system for Europe. Therefore, our preferred system was then and is now one of open lists. We would have liked it for Europe and we hope that we will get it now.

Mrs. Shephard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courteous explanation, but it will not sway me to support

his amendments, which will not surprise him, because no matter what he claims, they would move the government of London yet further from clear accountability and, as a result of their complexity, into incomprehensible confusion.
However, it is unlikely that the Committee will accept the Liberal Democrats' amendments because there is much support on both sides for the first-past-the-post electoral system, and that is not surprising. For centuries, it has provided accountable government which has enabled the electorate not only to hire Governments but also, on occasion, as they did 20 months ago, most decisively to fire them. The first-past-the-post system ensures that the electorate know who should be held accountable for policy, and those elected are more responsive as a result—certainly afterwards.
The first-past-the-post system also provides a direct line between the citizen and his or her elected member, whether of a council or Parliament. Of course it is the case that the Bill proposes the direct election, by the first-past-the-post system, of 14 assembly members, but they will be asked to represent enormous constituencies which bear no relation to existing constituency boundaries. To have to represent a constituency of between 300,000 and 400,000 people makes the job difficult and will certainly cause the 14 members to feel remote from their electors.
The system provides transparent government because it delivers a clearly understood procedure whereby the elector casts a vote directly for the candidate of his or her choice. It provides straightforward government and, above all, it puts people, not parties, in charge of those elected to power.
As I said, 14 members will be directly elected by the first-past-the-post system, but the remaining 11 of the so-called London members will be elected by a system of proportional representation from a closed party list.
I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will explain whether he is concerned about the fact that that will create two classes of assembly members—the 14 members directly elected but rather remote, and the 11 selected by parties, not people.
The Opposition's antipathy to closed lists is well known, as is that of many Labour Members. On 18 November, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) spoke for many of us on the issue of closed lists when he said:
If I get the sack from the people, so be it, but I would rather be sacked by the people than through the fiddling of a party list controlled by people who are almost unknown."—[Official Report, 18 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 973–74.]
The Government proposal for Londoners of two classes of assembly members by the combination of first past the post for 14 members and a form of proportional representation for the remaining 11 makes no contribution to accountability, transparency or, in particular, democratic principles.
With regard to London members, the public will not be able to vote for named party candidates, although they will be able to do so for a named independent candidate, causing the anomaly which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) raised with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, which will have to be thrashed out in Committee and some sort of solution found. People will


have to vote for a party when electing London members; the party will choose the order and the people will have no say in the matter.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that the two amendments tabled by Conservative Members do not address the issue, and even though I accept that the right hon. Lady will not support us on the single transferable vote, does she share our view that we should pass amendments on open rather than closed lists, if we are to have a list system for parties? Will she and her colleagues at least join forces with us—in Committee and on Report—to vote for amendments providing open rather than closed lists?

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman asks me to commit to a process that will take some time. I am setting out our position on what form the election for the Greater London assembly should take. We are firmly for first past the post and we do not have much truck with the alternatives, at this stage anyway. Given that he has proposed so many alternatives, we shall have a rich opportunity to consider them all.

Mr. Hughes: A last intervention?

Mrs. Shephard: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Hughes: I am always happy to offer a menu that might enlighten the right hon. Lady.
There is one other matter. Has the right hon. Lady considered the fact that, if we keep the first-past-the-post system, her colleagues and her party are likely, in the present political climate, to suffer badly? If she has not considered that, will she add it to the list of alternatives? The first-past-the-post system was not a wow and a success for the Conservative party in Scotland or in Wales at the general election, and it did not appear to deliver huge electoral success in England either. I say this in all seriousness: has she reflected on the fact that it might be wise—if she wants her party and the 25 per cent. of voters who vote Tory to be represented fairly in London—to change her views now rather than be forced to change them after another electoral defeat?

Mr. Forth: What a disgraceful suggestion.

Mrs. Shephard: It is indeed an extraordinary suggestion. It reveals more about the hon. Gentleman and the way that he and his party operate—and, indeed, think—than he perhaps would have wished. I repeat that our principle is that electors should be able to vote for people, not parties, to influence the outcome of elections.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the system that he has proposed as his choice for the Government to consider this evening was condemned by the Jenkins commission on electoral reform. We believe that its findings have been kicked into touch by the Prime Minister—the Minister may tell us more about that—although it was set up by his Government. The commission said:
The Commission recommends that the second vote determining the allocation of Top Up members should allow the voter the choice of either a vote for the party or for an individual candidate from the lists put forward by parties. They should therefore be what are commonly called open rather than closed lists.

That charming hyperbole comes fittingly from its author.
The plethora of voting systems and arrangements to be put in place will not help the clarity of the electoral system in London. We should reflect on the fact that Londoners will be asked to vote for their borough councillors—using the first-past-the-post system—every four years, and for the mayor and assembly every four years, but with a supplementary vote and additional-member systems of which the assembly system is a part. A variety of systems may be used if the Government accept the Liberal Democrat amendment.

Mrs. Lait: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the proposal that we should vote every year in London for our local authorities?

Mrs. Shephard: I am coming to that. In the other three years, Londoners may be asked to vote for a third of their councillors annually, possibly under the first-past-the-post system or perhaps under an alternative system yet to be announced and subject to the result of a referendum—which may or may not take place before the next election—on the system proposed by the Jenkins commission. At the very least, the Government should pause before they compound the confusion that they are creating.
The election proposals in the Bill diminish the accountability and transparency of the important new form of local government that is being set up in London. The diminution of accountability and transparency is more grave because it stems from a fresh start or experiment. Powers will be removed from the boroughs and a body will be created, the members of which will perforce be remote from the public whom they are elected to serve.
In the name of good accountable government for London, I commend the amendments to the Committee and hope that it agrees to divide on them at the appropriate time.

9 pm

Mr. Martin Linton: I shall not detain the Committee for long, but I wish to speak against the amendments, which I hope will be resisted.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is used to being a voice crying in the wilderness. For many years, he was the sole Liberal Democrat in London. He has now been joined by a few on the outer periphery, but he is still the only Liberal Democrat in inner London. Thus he will be used to the position in which he finds himself on the single transferable vote—the protagonist for a system in which nobody in this country has ever shown much interest. It is a British invention that has been exported, but has never been appreciated or adopted in its home country. Unlike many of our other inventions, that has happened for good reasons. It has been exported to Ireland and Malta, and the Australian Senate conducts its elections using that system, but it has found no firm foothold in any other country because it has enormous faults. Those become apparent when one looks at the experience of other countries.
The first main fault of the single transferable vote system is that it sets candidates of the same party at each other's throats. That becomes obvious when one studies Irish elections. It is in the interests of a Fianna Fail


candidate not only to oppose Fine Gael candidates in the same constituency, but to poach votes from other Fianna Fail candidates—allegedly on the same ticket. Party colleagues will thus take a position on local issues designed to persuade Fianna Fail supporters to put them rather than party colleagues at the top of their list. It may be a form of democracy, but it promotes internecine warfare within political parties. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats wish that on the rest of us, but we can see the system's failings.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey says that the system gives choice within parties, and quotes the example of voters who might want to choose more women candidates or trade unionists, or perhaps a friend of theirs. If that were the only effect of STV it might have something to recommend it, but we know what happens in practice. The effect of the choice given to voters through STV, whereby essentially one can vote for only one candidate at a time in a multi-member constituency, is that people choose the candidate whose view is closest to theirs. The result is that candidates on the left or right wing of a party do better than those in the centre because they attract votes from supporters of other political parties. The effect of that can be seen all too clearly in Ireland.
Thus the second main failing of the STV system is that it blurs the distinction between political parties. What is the ideological distinction between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael? In the United States, the primary system blurs the distinction between political parties because it has the effect of turning a first-past-the-post system into another form of STV. People appear to be given a choice between parties and, within parties, between candidates. The inevitable result is that, within parties, there is competition between candidates of the same party and opposition parties attempt to steal votes from the other parties.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I know that the hon. Gentleman has had a long interest in this subject, and he makes some good points. May I put the counter argument? There is sometimes a benefit to the elector in candidates of the same party identifying themselves with local issues. It roots candidates within the local community, and prevents them from becoming too abstract.
The hon. Gentleman must be wary of taking Ireland as a example of where the differences are small. Unlike in most other European Union member countries, the party divide in Ireland has traditionally not been a left-right divide: it is based on nationalism and republicanism. The differences often have more to do with personality than with political philosophy. The other European countries that have proportional systems have not had that same confusion of party caused by a proportional electoral system.

Mr. Linton: It is true that the experience of Malta, which is the only other European country with that system, is very different. It has a much higher turnout. However, Maltese politics are a completely different kettle of fish, and family loyalties play an enormous part—even more so than in Ireland. Unfortunately, there are not enough exemplars of STV in Europe to show what would happen in this country, but they can warn us of the consequences.
The hon. Gentleman's comments about the experience in Ireland bring me to the third main failing of STV. The failing of many proportional systems is that they take Members of Parliament away from direct reliance on their voters and make them less involved with their constituency. Under some systems, there are no recognisable constituencies. The fault of STV lies in the other direction. It is difficult to believe that one could go too far in that direction, but one has only to look at Irish politics to see that many TDs are in their constituencies for a majority of the time and pay only occasional visits to the Dail in Dublin.
It is ridiculous that a TD for Sligo spent his whole time campaigning for an international airport in his constituency. As a monument to STV, there is now an international airport in County Sligo. STV encourages an enormously parochial approach to politics, so its failing is the reverse of most other PR systems. Nevertheless, it is a failing. One of the most important aspects of an electoral system should be that it establishes representatives who have solid roots in the constituency, and enables those representatives to devote time to what they are elected to do, which is to represent their constituencies in Parliament and to take part in decisions about the running of the country. STV has failed to do that, at least in Ireland.
We should resist the siren voices of the Liberal Democrats, who alone have held the STV flag aloft. The STV system has always been rejected in this country for good reasons. The Scottish convention considered it, but rejected it and adopted an additional member system. The Welsh also adopted an additional member system. I am sure that, if we had had a convention in London, we would have gone through the same arguments and come to the same conclusion. Indeed, the Green Paper tried to reproduce that process, and the same arguments were deployed by the Liberal Democrats and others. The result was the same as it was in Scotland and Wales, and it was decided that London should elect a mayor by a majoritarian system, but that the representatives should be elected by AMS.
I hear what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey says about leaving the door open to alternative vote plus. Powerful arguments will be made about that when the time comes, because it is a more recent development than the Green Paper or the White Paper. The Minister should examine that system, because it would have a great advantage. For example, London voters who vote Labour for their constituency representative in the assembly would not have to think about voting in another way in the second election. There would be no need for the tactical voting that bedevils our present system.
The most important thing is that we adopt the basic system proposed in the Bill. I have no problem with the closed list, and we must remember that every London voter will have a choice of candidates in his or her local constituency from whom to elect a local representative. The purpose of the 11 top-up members is to correct the anomalies created, inevitably, by any kind of majoritarian system, so that the representation across the whole of London more accurately reflects the parties' strength. It would be confusing one with the other if we tried to transport the choice of candidate into the other system; it would simply detract from what is essentially a correcting mechanism that requires a choice of party. Independents, of course, will still be able to stand.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) holds on fast to the first-past-the-post system. She overlooks the fact that the mayor will be elected by a majoritarian system; not by first past the post, but a better majoritarian system—the supplementary vote, which will remove the need for tactical voting and will ensure that the mayor has the support of a majority of the voters, or very close to a majority. We will not run the risk of elections where three candidates split the vote and one wins by gaining 36 per cent. I do not understand why the Conservatives should hang on to such a system when a far-superior majoritarian system is on offer.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk said that the constituency members should also be elected by first past the post, but she fails to understand that an assembly elected in the same way as the mayor would provide no checks whatever on the mayor. The mayor is elected by a majoritarian system. It would be pointless to reproduce such a system for the assembly. We would end up with a mayor of one party and an assembly almost entirely composed of members of the same party, which would serve little purpose. The whole idea of having an assembly is that the mayor has executive power, but that scrutiny and checks are exercised by an assembly intended to more closely reflect the political make-up of the voters.
The voters will still have complete power to hire or fire the executive through the mayoral elections, by a majoritarian system. What we do not need is to reproduce all the failings of our present voting system twice over by having the constituencies elected entirely by first past the post.

Mr. Forth: What we have here, I fear, is a muddle produced by the Government's need to rush into these matters without having thought them through properly. Given all the Green Papers and the other documents that we have had—to give the Government some credit—one might have thought that we would have had a better result. Regrettably, that is not so.
I hope that we will have a chance in Committee to debate the subject of the directly elected mayor, because I am still waiting to hear, not only from the Government, but from my own colleagues, what that is all about and how it will work—more of which, perhaps, later. The difficulty arises from the combination of the election of the mayor and the assembly with the completely experimental electoral approach, which fails on almost every count of desirability.
The first failure is that of the list, which will be new and relatively incomprehensible to most of the voters in London. It has all the other disadvantages of the closed list, which we need not rehearse yet again. However, we have just heard from the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton)—almost for the first time in the Chamber—a Labour Member of Parliament who is prepared to endorse and support the closed list. That has perhaps made this evening worth while, if nothing else has. It will go down as a little moment of history in our Committee.
9.15 pm
The difficulty is that the experimental new system that produces the constituency members will fail another of the basic tests of electoral desirability, because the

constituencies will be so big and so removed from the voters that there will be very little connection between the electors and the elected. Voters will have little connection with the London members on the list and I would argue that they can hardly be expected to have much connection with the constituency members.
The constituencies will be rather akin to European constituencies, and how many of us would claim that voters have any connection—intimate, knowledgeable or otherwise—with their Members of the European Parliament? That, however, is the system that is proposed for the representation of London voters in vital strategic decisions. Before we even get off first base, there are real problems in the Government's approach, because the system in no way measures up to what one would expect of a proper electoral system.
It gets worse, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said, when the members elected by this rather bizarre scheme arrive in the assembly chamber, they will inevitably fall into two classes: those who will claim an association with their constituencies, however large and amorphous, and those on the list, who will have some claim to represent the whole of London, but only through the prism or viewfinder of their party. We will have a peculiar assembly consisting of members elected in different ways and, inevitably, with different perspectives and a different status.
Worse even than that, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, there will be no majority in the assembly. Some may argue—the hon. Gentleman implied this—that it will be a virtue if the assembly is not dominated by any one political party. I have some experience of a democratic institution without a stable majority. I make a confession to this secret and private meeting that for five years, I was an elected Member of the European Parliament. I do not want that to be held unduly against me, and I have been trying to live it down ever since.
That experience taught me several lessons. The one that is relevant to this debate is that the institution suffers from not having an in-built party majority. We have seen an example of that very recently, I submit. The problem is that majorities vary, not only from issue to issue, but from time to time; there is no continuity of purpose or thrust in the institution so it loses its way on almost every issue.
The great danger is that the assembly will suffer the same fate. In my view, it is likely to be ineffective because of the proposed system of election and the fact that it will almost certainly not have a party majority, especially when it is placed in an adversarial position with the mayor, as the hon. Member for Battersea said, and has to provide a check and balance.
I fear that the assembly will be politically less effective as a result of not having a party majority and that a skilful mayor will be able to pick off issues and play members off against one another, thus, at worst, rendering the assembly completely ineffective as a check or balance on the mayor's activities. Surely, on any analysis, that would be a denial of the Government's intentions—as I understand them from all their arguments—for the authority as a whole and for the relationship between the mayor and the assembly. We seem to be getting the worst of all possible worlds in terms of transparency, comprehensibility to the people of London, accountability


or predictability of the outcome of elections. On none of the normal tests that one would wish to apply to an electoral system or a political decision-making body does the system measure up. That is a powerful indictment of the Bill.
I do not believe that the multiplicity of solutions offered by the Liberal Democrats would repair any of the Bill's grievous shortcomings, and that is why I support my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk. Whatever the shortcomings of first past the post—and it has some—it is at least understandable to the people of the UK and London. It provides predictability, stability and continuity that will be extremely desirable, especially during the early experimental phase of the new form of government for London.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman hold the view that the good old first-past-the-post system is a better way to select someone to represent a constituency than the alternative vote system? No one can argue that AV is complicated, and it provides a member for the constituency who commands the support of a majority of the voters. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that some Members have been elected to the House with a share of the vote as low as 25 or 26 per cent. in recent years.

Mr. Forth: I understand that argument, but I have never entirely gone along with it. The idea that someone has the support of the majority once votes have been moved around, shuffled and prioritised does not hold good. The strength of the first-past-the-post system is that everyone understands it clearly, and they accept good times and bad.
The hon. Gentleman—uncharacteristically—suggested to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk that the Conservatives should favour whatever electoral system we imagine might benefit us most in some future political environment. That is a shoddy argument, and it was unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. It appears that the hon. Member for Battersea wishes to come to his rescue.

Mr. Linton: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the Conservative party does not use the first-past-the-post system to elect its leader?

Mr. Forth: That is a very good question, and I should like to hear the answer to it myself. I certainly favour a first-past-the-post system for that election, but I lost the argument on that. It may be that my party will live rather to regret the way in which it decided to go. We shall unfortunately learn that only at some time in the very distant future, so we need not concern ourselves with it for some considerable time; the hon. Member for Battersea should not hold his breath.

Mr. Hughes: I sensed something of a recovery operation in the last few words from the right hon. Gentleman.
When I intervened on the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), I was not arguing that the Conservative party should adopt the system that most benefits it. My argument was that we should have a system under which if 25 per cent. of Londoners vote

Conservative, a fair representation results. I am not bothered about what the Tory party thinks, but I am bothered about what the electors think.

Mr. Forth: That is a familiar argument, and it is, in its way, perfectly fair. My difficulty with that analysis is that it is always dangerous to try to make judgments about electoral systems on the basis of what one imagines people will do when the election takes place. We all know that political opinion is often extremely volatile, and that much can change in a short time. To advocate a system that may reflect what we would like—or, even, what we would fear—is a dangerous approach.
From my experience in the political business, I do not detect that the electors necessarily feel particularly cheated, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I do not think that he has heard any great complaints yet from the Conservative party, or even from voters in Scotland and Wales that they feel cheated because they do not have any Conservative Members of Parliament. Even if that were the case, it is one of the prices that one pays for the many other benefits of a first-past-the-post electoral system. On balance, these things are judgments and our judgment—that of the majority of Conservative Members—is that first past the post has many more virtues than vices and shortcomings.

Mr. Hughes: This is an important argument, but I shall be brief as I do not want to delay other hon. Members. There are two remaining snags in the right hon. Gentleman's analysis. First, he is wrong to say that people do not resent the fact that they are carved out of representation, although a large number of them voted for a certain party. For example, in Liverpool and other big cities where there has been no Conservative representation for years, people resent the fact that their voice is not being heard. It is strange to argue that there is not a large voice and that people are therefore content not to have representation. For example, if Tory voters in Scotland where there are no Tory Members are content, it says little for the representation that they had before.

Mr. Forth: That is a matter for them.
I must reinforce an argument that emerged during an earlier brief exchange with the hon. Gentleman and I hope that we will not forget or lose sight of this rather worrisome aspect. I hope that the Minister will take up this point and tell us if we have it wrong or if there is something that we should know that is not obvious from reading the Bill.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey advocates individual candidates and I am sure that most hon. Members want some to come through the process and take their place in the assembly, as I do. Clause 11 concerns the filling of vacancies and states that if the office of a London member becomes vacant,
If the London member was returned as an individual candidate…the vacancy, shall remain unfilled",
which seems totally unsatisfactory from almost every point of view. I hope that I can be reassured that I am wrong and that the Minister will tell me that vacancies will not remain unfilled. If they do, people will be unrepresented and the assembly will miss the opportunity to reflect possible changes in political opinion.
The Bill then goes on to state that, where there is a list, if someone resigns or dies the next person on the list will move up. I suppose that we must accept that as an almost inevitable result of the list approach. However, it gives rise to an interesting question, which has always fascinated me and to which even the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey did not seem to have an answer.
This possibility should not be dismissed as totally unlikely. If we have a party list, the top five candidates are elected and a series of mishaps or resignations—even a mass resignation—follows, there may well come a time when no one is left on the list to fill successive vacancies during the term of the assembly. We would then be in the peculiar and anomalous position of having a series of unfilled vacancies.
To reduce the argument to absurdity, and its logical conclusion, one might find that there were an increasing number of unfilled vacancies in the assembly. To the extent to which that is at least a possibility, I hope that the Minister will find some way to reassure us that he has some magical solution. Reading clause 11 of the Bill, one is driven to the conclusion that it is a possibility and it is not reassuring for the people of London, who are being dragged into this experiment by the Government when only 70 per cent. of one third of them turned out to support it—underwhelming support indeed.
There is still a lot of work to be done. I hope that it goes without saying that I support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk. We need much more explanation from the Government before Conservatives will be even half convinced that this is any sort of way to go ahead with this new approach to the governance of Greater London.

Mr. McNulty: I hope that the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) will forgive me if I do not dwell on her amendments, not least because, as she said, they are fairly meaningless because of the way in which they have been bunched. They would leave us with 14 directly elected members in an assembly of 14; it may be more than that. I am sure that the way that they are bunched does not reflect what was intended.
I shall not ask to be forgiven for saying that I shall ignore the sad ramblings of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). They were irrelevant, so there is nothing to respond to.
I shall concentrate on what I would call, without reservation and without intending to offend, the dogmatic self-interest wrapped in treacle of the Liberal Democrats. They did not say what the assembly is for, what it is trying to do, what its strategic functions are, and then ask what would be the most appropriate electoral system. Instead, we heard the usual rant about how single transferable vote is as pure as the driven snow and how we must try to fit everything else around it. That is a woeful disservice to London.
If STV does not work, we are offered a menu which says, "If you don't like that, what about AV plus? If you don't like that, how about this?" Everything on this stinky little menu is unpalatable and unworthy. We are talking

about something as fundamental and important in London's development as the establishment of the Greater London assembly while the Liberal Democrats hold another seminar on their buddhist mantra of electoral reform. Given what London needs, there is no justification for that.
The Liberal Democrats are not alone. The Electoral Reform Society's little ditty runs in similar vain. It says that STV is wonderful because
it will extend voter choice".
It has not anywhere where it has been implemented. The pure STV system does not work anywhere.

Mr. Simon Hughes: What about Ireland?

Mr. McNulty: I shall come back to Ireland in a moment.
The ERS states that STV would
ensure the accountability of all Assembly Members as all would be elected on the basis of their personal votes".
That is facile and says nothing. I got 32,000 personal votes; I dare anyone to say that I got less. I know that they were not; others do not. That means nothing. The ERS says:
STV would produce a broadly proportional Assembly without the need for two categories of Assembly Member.
That is not proven, not least because of the Irish context.
This may sound daft but I fully support STV in the Irish Republic because it is appropriate to its body politic. Outside Dublin, Ireland is a disparate, rural land. The quota for seats is no more than 7,500. Within the multi-member seats, there is county bias at each end of a constituency. That is appropriate because it means that a sparse rural community will be served well in the Dail by its Teachta Dala.
It is the same in Dublin because despite its spread, it is a morass of little villages and communities that is served by STV in a way that, in an Irish context, first past the post would not. However, STV is not, in an Irish context, proportional. As the Irish electorate becomes more and more volatile, they get TDs who do not have the quota and get in because they just managed to survive in last place. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) told the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—I suppose that I have to say that—that 25 or 26 per cent. can be sufficient to get a candidate elected in a diverse first-past-the-post constituency. That happens but it happens with increasing regularity in the pure STV system that he is so fond of in the Irish Republic. More and more often, in every constituency johnny-last-in gets elected, with no quota at all, but—this might sound familiar—as the repository of every protest vote scraped up so that he can stay in. That brings us back to Liberal self-interest, which is what the amendment is all about.
During the previous debate, the point was well made that it is incumbent on us to ensure that the Greater London assembly reflects the inclusivity of London's rich and varied society. That will not, as if by magic, happen if we use STV, AV-plus or any other proportional system; nor will it happen if we utilise the system set out in the Bill. It happens—here comes the standard Liberal cop-out—where political parties have the will to make sure that it happens. It is incumbent on all the parties in


London to ensure that their candidates for both the 14 directly elected seats and the 11 list seats reflect the gender balance and the rich cultural diversity of London.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey suggested that using STV will ensure that a trade unionist will be elected here, a woman there and a black or Asian candidate somewhere else. That is facile and abject nonsense that simply hides the self-interest that is always nakedly present beneath the Liberal Democrats piety, as they deliver the latest sermon on STV from the pulpit. It is complete nonsense.
Electoral systems have to be horses for courses. If the additional member system or the hybrid version is appropriate for the London assembly, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, that is fine by us, because we start by asking, "What are those bodies for?" and then ask, "What electoral system will best reflect those functions and serve the community?" We do not aim for the purity of the Liberal Democrats' approach.
I am polite, so I tried not to snigger when the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey suggested that AV-plus has new legitimacy because of the Jenkins commission report. I have to say, with the best will in the world, that AV-plus, to paraphrase one of the hon. Gentleman's ex-colleagues, will probably be strangled at birth, because of Jenkins; it will die before it ever rears its ugly head because of Jenkins. Despite the report's sweet, literary style, probably resulting from its having been written in a haze of claret, the Jenkins commission got it wrong.
I am not a first-past-the-post Luddite, either in a London context or more broadly; nor am I an STV or PR evangelist. Show me what the architecture of government is about and what it is supposed to represent, then tell me how the electoral system best enables the community to get what it needs from that architecture. You have not done that—sorry, Mr. Martin: the Liberal Democrats have not done that. The Conservatives certainly have not done it either, but we shall put that down to the selection of amendments. We could probably have had a more interesting debate on their amendments—they would still have been wrong, but we could have gone into greater detail had the Conservatives managed to table their amendments in proper order.
The Liberal Democrats have not started with the 14-11 split of the constituencies as they stand in the Bill, nor by telling us how that is wrong within the context of what is sought from the assembly, but that is the question they have to answer. We do not want boy scout stuff about PR from the Liberal Democrats, nor Luddite stuff about first past the post from the Conservatives. They have not told us how the two aspects—the architecture and the electoral system—marry together.
This is not a little debating chamber where someone can get good marks and go to the top of the class—that is the Liberal conference, which is held only once a year. The issues at stake are real: after the elections, the Greater London authority will have a real impact on the people of London, whom we all purport to represent, so mess with it at your peril. We do not want the GLA to suffer because the high priests of PR or the Luddites want to play games.
What is in the Bill is right and we must stick with it. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) to close the door completely and not to entertain any alternative electoral system. This is London's reality and we should get on with it.

Mrs. Lait: The last time I followed the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) in this place we were discussing commerce. On this occasion, I suggest that the Government Whips might like to take the hon. Gentleman aside to explain that, although we shall vote on the Conservative amendments later, he is perfectly free to discuss them now. However, I would hate to give the hon. Gentleman a lesson on procedure.
Before I speak in support of the Conservative amendments, I have a few words for the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who was rather hopeful that the Leader of the Opposition might be coming around to the hon. Gentleman's point of view regarding electoral reform. However, I have a copy of a speech that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition gave tonight and the hon. Gentleman might appreciate hearing a quote from it. It states:
Another threat from Labour's programme of constitutional change is that the link between the governed and the government, which has been an historic strength of our institutions, could be severed.
Our first-past-the-post voting system provides that link because the British people know who is responsible for new laws and taxes, and they do something about it if they do not like them—they can kick the government out.
I am sorry, but I must point out that the hon. Gentleman's hopes have been dashed. I left the House at the last election as a result of the will of the people and was rapidly returned as a result of our first-past-the-post system. That would not have happened if we had operated any form of proportional representation system. Therefore, I have a definite personal interest in maintaining first past the post. I have long envisaged many problems with proportional representation, one of which was mentioned earlier this evening.
I would like the Minister to respond to some specific points. We oppose the idea of the additional member—or London member in the context of the Bill. Given that European Union citizens who are resident in London will be eligible to vote, could one of them stand for election to the London assembly? The Minister is nodding assent, so we can add that to the list of potential representative groups suggested by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. We look forward to seeing European citizens representing Londoners in the assembly.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) spoke about his experiences in the European Parliament. One result of the list system in the European Parliament is that someone very prominent heads the list in order to give some identity to the other faceless characters on the list who have been chosen by the party. When the elections are over, the prominent person disappears and everyone else moves up one place. In that way the real leader of the group in Parliament emerges and Members from the bottom of the list enter Parliament. Unless the Bill is amended, I assume that that could happen in this case.
I do not plan to serve on the Committee that will consider the Bill—that is a source of great sadness to me, but I am not volunteering my services. However, some technical questions must be answered before anyone—particularly the people of London who will have to work with it—can make a sensible judgment about the value of the system. Anyone in Bromley who talks to me about this subject—I must admit that it is not a topic of


conversation on an hourly or daily basis—cannot comprehend other than voting for the first-past-the-post system. The people of Bromley do not like any form of proportional representation, and I agree with them.

Mr. Raynsford: This has been an interesting debate, which concluded with a rather sad insight into the point of view of the electors of Bromley, who, according to their representative, are incapable of considering any possible change in the electoral system. I think more highly of the Bromley electorate, which I am sure is interested in possible alternatives to systems that have been tried for years.
I reassure the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) that under this country's local government electoral law it is possible for a European citizen resident in London—residence in London is essential—to vote in local elections and to stand for election to local government. That provision will not change for elections to the Greater London authority.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) opened the debate by expressing a reasonable concern that the new system of government should work. We accept that it is innovative. We are committed to ensuring that it works. She talked about the need for decisive and effective government, and we are determined to achieve that. The mayor will be elected by a system that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) described as a superior majoritarian system that will guarantee a clear majority and a decisive mandate.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk expressed concern about the departure from constituency representation. However, we are ensuring a strong, but not exclusive, constituency element in the new framework. As she knows, there will be 14 members representing constituencies. There will be other members, but a strong constituency element will remain, which we think is right.
The right hon. Lady argued for first past the post, essentially on two grounds: the ability of the electorate to hire and fire the authority or government and the need for a clear constituency link. I have already established that we shall have a clear constituency link. On hiring and firing, the mayor will be the executive. The supplementary vote system will enable the electorate decisively to reject a mayor whom they do not want to keep in place and, conversely, to elect with a good majority a mayor in whom they have confidence. That will in no way interrupt the process of hiring and firing; it will ensure accountability, which is the right hon. Lady's objective.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) seemed semi-detached on this issue. I fear that during the proceedings we shall discover a suspicion on his part even about having a mayor, which the rest of his party now believes is a good idea. I look forward to hearing his views on that. He expressed concern about having two classes of member: a constituency member and a London-wide member. He obviously is not familiar with the electoral systems in many American cities where some members are elected at large, to use the American term, and others are elected to represent constituencies.
That is done for good reasons similar to those that we have established here—we want to ensure that there are people who can take a wide view and not simply focus on parochial issues.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman, as I did the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk, that the fact that there is not a majority on the assembly will not in any way hinder its effectiveness because the assembly is not the executive. The mayor is the executive and, by definition, the mayor will always have a majority because he or she will be elected under a majoritarian system.
The amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk would remove the proportional element of the voting system that we have devised for the assembly. The GLA's purpose is to represent and promote the views and interests of all Londoners. It can best do that if the assembly is composed of members whose interests and concerns reflect those of the electorate as a whole. The additional member system that we have adopted will encourage that and allow it to happen.
The first-past-the-post system favoured by Conservative Members could easily leave whole communities or viewpoints unrepresented because they are scattered through London and not concentrated in any one of the new electoral areas that will return directly elected assembly members. The list system will give those people a hope of having a say in London's government, which we believe is right. We cannot accept the Conservative amendments and I invite the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk to withdraw them.
I turn now to the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I fear that he is beginning to take what might be described as an anorak approach to politics. The hon. Gentleman has tabled amendments suggesting different voting systems. It is difficult to be altogether sure what he really wants. Is it AV or AV-plus? Is it STV? Is it open or semi-open lists? Is it the Belgian or the d'Hondt formula? Is it single or multi-member constituencies? By way of contrast to this plethora of interesting and obscure formulas, the Government's position on how to elect the assembly is consistent and clear.
We set out clear proposals in our White Paper for assembly elections to be held under the additional member system, using first past the post for the constituency elections. This is the system adopted for elections in the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. It is the system set out in the White Paper, which was well known to Londoners when they voted in the referendum; and it is the system that we intend to deliver.

Mr. Forth: Before the Minister concludes his remarks, is he going to give me even a minuscule answer to the questions that I asked about unfilled vacancies? Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I think that there is a problem in this regard, and the Committee would be grateful for an explanation from the Minister.

Mr. Raynsford: Those matters are dealt with in clause 11, which we are not considering tonight. I shall come to them when we debate clause 11 in Committee,


and will thus avoid being out of order this evening. I shall certainly ensure that the right hon. Gentleman gets a full answer.

Mr. Forth: But not now.

Mr. Raynsford: No; I would give a full answer now were it not out of order to do so.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey welcomed the Government's openness to reform. He regretted the lack of a consultative group to consider the electoral system in London, but acknowledged that there had been consultation on the Green Paper. Indeed, I well recall speaking to him during the consultation period when we listened carefully to his views and those of his colleagues. I appreciate his recognition of our decision, following the consultation, to operate a proportional system which should allow proper representation of London's diverse areas and communities. I hope that he will not be too disappointed that we do not accept his amendment, which would take us to the wilder shores of anorakism.
The additional member system will allow a wide range of interests and points of view to be represented. It combines a Londonwide list element, to ensure that the assembly has a strategic citywide focus, with representation from all parts of London. It is likely to deliver broadly proportional outcomes. Of course there can be debates about the intricacies of any electoral system. If the Liberal Democrats had their way, those debates would be interminable. What we are proposing is a balanced system for electing the assembly, which will deliver a body that represents London's interests. I see no reason to change our proposals.
I am not convinced that the Liberal Democrats' plans to replace our proposals for a blend of constituency and Londonwide representation with multi-member constituencies would be in London's best interest. Under our proposals, all parts of London will be represented in the assembly, working to ensure that a wide range of viewpoints from across London has a chance to be expressed. In addition, we are proposing a Londonwide component for the assembly elections, which is essential if the assembly is to have a strategic, Londonwide perspective.
If we were to adopt multi-member constituencies, the balance would be lost. There would be members for north London and some members from the south-west, but no overall Londonwide dimension. It would be necessary for the Local Government Commission to conduct a review of the constituencies and make further recommendations to the Secretary of State. That would entirely nullify all its work, which has led to the announcement that I made earlier this afternoon about the constituencies that will apply. It would also risk delaying the first GLA elections. We therefore believe that there is no case for reopening the issue.
On the specific proposals for STV and AV, I am unconvinced by the case made out by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. The main argument advanced in favour of these systems is that they enhance voter choice because voters are able to rank candidates from different parties in order of preference. The AV-plus system was recommended by the Jenkins committee, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. However,

as he recognised, different systems can be adopted for different bodies. There is no reason why we should adopt the same system for different tiers of government. What Jenkins may believe is right for Westminster, he would not necessarily believe was right for other tiers of government in Scotland, Wales or London. The additional member system will give voters wide choice. A London voter will be able to vote for both a constituency candidate and a party or independent on a Londonwide basis. He or she need not choose the same party in the constituency and on the list; in my view, that represents a real choice.
Moreover, the single transferable vote would inevitably require very large constituencies—with, possibly, a million electors in each one, on the basis of the five constituencies that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned, which will not necessarily provide a good and natural area and will not necessarily make it easy for electors to identify with their candidates. If we want to have representatives who are familiar with the area and accessible to the electorate, I am not sure that a constituency with an electorate of a million voters is necessarily the right way to do it.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea and for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) emphasised, STV may sound nice in the snow-white Liberal presentation, but the reality of STV as practised in certain parts of the world is very different. It may be a recipe for skulduggery and all sorts of malpractice that we do not want introduced into the political system. My hon. Friends the Members for Battersea and for Harrow, East made a forceful case for avoiding anything to do with the STV system.
On the issue of closed lists, I do not accept the argument that parties, rather than voters, will choose the 11 additional members. The order in which candidates appear on the list may well influence the voter's choice of party. Those lists will be accessible to voters in every polling station, and voters will pay attention to the identity of the leading personalities on the list.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has tabled a series of amendments that would alter the method by which list members are elected. If those amendments were passed, voters would vote, not for a party or individual candidate, but for individual candidates on the party list—or, in the case of amendment No. 41, either an individual on the list or the party as a whole. That matter has recently been the subject of a protracted debate in another place, and I do not propose to re-open those arguments in detail today.
I shall conclude by making four key points. First, our proposals for electing the assembly were set out in the White Paper and were well publicised before Londoners went to the polls in the referendum of May 1998. I do not believe that those who argue that the Government's position on this issue is undemocratic are on secure ground.
Secondly, the system that we propose is entirely consistent with legislation recently approved by Parliament for elections to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. It would be odd if, having so recently agreed a system for those two organisations, we were to announce that we had to change the system because it was unsatisfactory for London.
Thirdly, the charge is often made that closed lists mean that voters can no longer vote for an individual, but, as I have stressed, the list is only one element, and voters in


every part of London will have an individual constituency in which they can vote on a first-past-the-post basis for their representative in that constituency. It is a balanced system, which provides the voter with a high degree of choice, enabling them to vote for both the constituency candidate and the party.
Finally, with the open-list system, which the Liberal Democrats are proposing, there is a real risk that elections would become phenomenally complex and confusing, and we do not intend to have that.
The proposals that the Government have brought before the House are clear and consistent. They will deliver a proportional assembly, which combines a Londonwide perspective with geographical representation from all parts of London. They give voters genuine choice. They are relatively simple for electors and administrators to operate—a significant advantage over some of the alternatives proposed today. With that in mind, I ask the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to withdraw their amendments.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have quite a few seconds left in which to speak. The Minister is obviously not yet persuaded. We propose a system that produces one type of assembly member; he wants two. We propose a system that has a more representative assembly member; his system has a less representative one. We want open lists; he wants closed lists. We believe that the case is made, and we should like to press amendment No. 19 to the vote. We believe that we are right.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 44, Noes 461.

Division No. 39]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Livsey, Richard


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Llwyd, Elfyn


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Brake, Tom
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Brand, Dr Peter
Moore, Michael


Breed, Colin
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Oaten, Mark


Burnett, John
Öpik, Lembit


Burstow, Paul
Rendel, David


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Chidgey, David
Sanders, Adrian


Cotter, Brian
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Swinney, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Tyler, Paul


Gorrie, Donald
Wallace, James


Hancock, Mike
Webb, Andrew


Harris, Dr Evan
Welsh, Andrew


Harvey, Nick
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Willis, Phil


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)




Keetch, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Mr. Andrew Stunell and


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Don Foster


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Allen, Graham


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Amess, David


Ainger, Nick
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Alexander, Douglas
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James





Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Coleman, Iain


Ashton, Joe
Collins, Tim


Atherton, Ms Candy
Colman, Tony


Atkins, Charlotte
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Connarty, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Austin, John
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Banks, Tony
Cooper, Yvette


Barnes, Harry
Corbett, Robin


Barron, Kevin
Corbyn, Jeremy


Battle, John
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bayley, Hugh
Corston, Ms Jean


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cousins, Jim


Begg, Miss Anne
Cran, James


Beggs, Roy
Cranston, Ross


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bennett, Andrew F
Cummings, John


Benton, Joe

Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bercow, John
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dalyell, Tam


Berry, Roger
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Betts, Clive
Darvill, Keith


Blackman, Liz
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blizzard, Bob
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Borrow, David
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Boswell, Tim
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Denham, John


Brazier, Julian
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dismore, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dobbin, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Donohoe, Brian H


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Doran, Frank


Browne, Desmond
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Browning, Mrs Angela
Dowd, Jim


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Drew, David


Buck, Ms Karen
Drown, Ms Julia


Burden, Richard
Duncan, Alan


Burgon, Colin
Duncan Smith, Iain


Burns, Simon
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Caborn, Richard
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Efford, Clive


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Etherington, Bill


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, Nigel


Caplin, Ivor
Faber, David


Casale, Roger
Fallon, Michael


Cash, William
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Caton, Martin
Fisher, Mark


Cawsey, Ian
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Flight, Howard


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Flint, Caroline


Chisholm, Malcolm
Flynn, Paul


Chope, Christopher
Follett, Barbara


Clapham, Michael
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Clappison, James
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Foulkes, George


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Fyfe, Maria


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Galbraith, Sam


Clelland, David
Gale, Roger


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Galloway, George


Clwyd, Ann
Gapes, Mike


Coaker, Vernon
Gardiner, Barry



Garnier, Edward



Gerrard, Neil



Gibb, Nick


Coffey, Ms Ann
Gill, Christopher






Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Godman, Dr Norman A
Kemp, Fraser


Godsiff, Roger
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Goggins, Paul
Key, Robert



Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Khabra, Piara S


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Kidney, David


Gray, James
Kilfoyle, Peter


Green, Damian
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Greenway, John
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Grieve, Dominic
Kingham, Ms Tess


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Grocott, Bruce
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Grogan, John
Lansley, Andrew


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Gunnell, John
Laxton, Bob


Hain, Peter
Leigh, Edward



Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Lepper, David


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Leslie, Christopher


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Levitt, Tom


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Hammond, Philip
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Hawkins, Nick
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Hayes, John
Lidington, David


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Linton, Martin


Heald, Oliver
Livingstone, Ken


Healey, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)



Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Lock, David


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Luff, Peter


Hepburn, Stephen
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Heppell, John
McAllion, John


Hesford, Stephen
McAvoy, Thomas


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
McCabe, Steve


Hill, Keith
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Hinchliffe, David
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hoey, Kate
Macdonald, Calum


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
McDonnell, John


Home Robertson, John
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hope, Phil
McIsaac, Shona


Hopkins, Kelvin
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Horam, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
McNulty, Tony


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Howells, Dr Kim
McWalter, Tony


Hoyle, Lindsay
McWilliam, John


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Madel, Sir David


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hunter, Andrew
Malins, Humfrey


Hurst, Alan
Mallaber. Judy


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Illsley, Eric
Marek, Dr John


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Jamieson, David
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Jenkin, Bernard
Martlew, Eric


Jenkins, Brian
Mates, Michael


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Meale, Alan


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Merron, Gillian


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Michael, Alun


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Miller, Andrew


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Mitchell, Austin


Keeble, Ms Sally
Moonie, Dr Lewis



Moran, Ms Margaret



Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)



Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Morley, Elliot





Moss, Malcolm
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mountford, Kali
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mudie, George
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Snape, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Soames, Nicholas


Norman, Archie
Soley, Clive


Norris, Dan
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Spellar, John


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Olner, Bill
Spicer, Sir Michael


O'Neill, Martin
Spring, Richard


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Squire, Ms Rachel


Ottaway, Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Page, Richard
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Paice, James
Steen, Anthony


Paterson, Owen
Steinberg, Gerry


Pendry, Tom
Stevenson, George


Perham, Ms Linda
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pickles, Eric
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pickthall, Colin
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pike, Peter L
Stoate, Dr Howard


Plaskitt, James
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pollard, Kerry
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pond, Chris
Streeter, Gary


Pound, Stephen
Stringer, Graham


Powell, Sir Raymond
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Swayne, Desmond


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Syms, Robert


Primarolo, Dawn
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Prior, David
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Radice, Giles
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Randall, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rapson, Syd
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Raynsford, Nick
Timms, Stephen


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tipping, Paddy


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Todd, Mark


Robathan, Andrew
Touhig, Don


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Townend, John


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Trend, Michael


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Trickett, Jon


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rooney, Terry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tyrie, Andrew


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Vaz, Keith


Rowlands, Ted

Viggers, Peter


Roy, Frank
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ruane, Chris
Walley, Ms Joan


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Walter, Robert


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wardle, Charles


Salter, Martin
Wareing, Robert N


Savidge, Malcolm
Watts, David


Sawford, Phil
White, Brian


Sayeed, Jonathan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sedgemore, Brian
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Shaw, Jonathan
Whittingdale, John


Sheerman, Barry
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Willetts, David


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Wilshire, David


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wilson, Brian


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Winnick, David


Singh, Marsha
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Skinner, Dennis
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wise, Audrey






Wood, Mike
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Woolas, Phil



Worthington, Tony




Tellers for the Noes:


Wray, James




Mr. David Hanson and


Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)



Yeo, Tim
Mr. Kevin Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Committee report progress: to sit again tomorrow.

DEREGULATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

PIPE-LINES

That the draft Deregulation (Pipe-Lines) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 30th November 1998, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

Mr. John Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order is simple: it will not have escaped your notice that over two thirds of hon. Members of this House have just voted against a complete proportional representation system for any election.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Hon. Members are entitled to vote as they please.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983

That the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

Ordered,

That Sir Alastair Goodlad be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Mr. Eric Forth be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Orders of the Day — Criminal Injuries Compensation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is important, not only for my constituents, but for all right hon. and hon. Members. Britain can be proud of its commitment to victims of crime. It is not universally understood that we pay out more to those who have had their lives damaged, and sometimes ruined, due to crimes committed against them or members of their family than any other European country—indeed, more than our European partners put together.
That reflects the compassion and the natural justice ingrained within our society. The principle underpinning criminal injuries compensation is that it is an expression of public sympathy and support for the innocent victim.
I was a social worker in Kent before being elected to the House, and I have experience of assisting abused children in making claims for compensation. The legal team working for Kent county council is held up as a beacon of excellence by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority for the way in which it processed claims on behalf of the children in its care.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Department will reply to the debate. He has a highly regarded reputation and his commitment to vulnerable people was evident to me in his previous work, particularly at the Department of Health.
In the light of the review that the Government are holding, I shall address some of the issues relating to criminal injuries compensation. I am pleased to be joined by my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
When changes were introduced a few years ago, they were not universally welcomed. However, there was consensus that, although payments would be less under a tariff scheme than through the previous system, the new claims would be processed much more speedily. From my experience of dealing with constituents, I know that it has been frustrating that some people claimed under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, not under the authority. Many cases wait and wait, letters are not answered and files have been lost. Indeed, one constituent has been waiting eight years for a final settlement.
I have noted from written answers from the board's chairman, the noble Lord Carlisle, that additional members have been appointed to the board and that progress is being made with the backlog. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure me this evening that he is monitoring the board's progress and will take steps if it appears to him that the board is unlikely to meet the required level of progress to clear the backlog by March 2000, as agreed.
Even under the tariff scheme, victims can wait a year for a response. Thousands of cases go on to review and then appeal. We should look at how the system could be improved and speeded up. A high proportion of sexual violence cases are turned down at the initial and the review stages because the authority cannot make a


decision based on papers alone. For example, where a successful defence of consent in a rape trial results in acquittal, there is a conflict of evidence between the applicant and the offender and the case can be settled only at a hearing. The only way for applicants then to make progress is to appeal. However, that is after they have been told in writing by the authority that it is not satisfied that the injuries are the result of a crime.
Hon. Members will understand that that is extremely distressing because, at that stage, the victim is unsure whether the decision that has been reached is a result of conflict, of lack of evidence or of the fact that the authority simply does not believe him or her. In such circumstances, an alternative might be for the panel to advise the victim that it cannot decide on the paper evidence and that it will make a request for an immediate initial hearing. That would speed up the process and give the victim the comfort that the case was at least being given fair consideration.
All hon. Members will know of hideous crimes committed on their constituents and the impact that they have had. It seems wrong that we give compensation and then assess people's means for benefits, which can then be taken it away. I am aware that people have the option of opening a trust, but the amount of money that can go into a trust that can be used freely is limited. There are also solicitors' fees for setting up trusts, not to mention the issue of the liberty to spend one's money as one sees fit.
There are examples of pensioners who have been mugged losing council tax benefit. I have worked with children who have suffered the worst forms of sexual abuse. They have had their income stopped because of an award. That cannot be right and it does not sit comfortably with the spirit of the scheme. Victims of crime should be treated as a special case. It is unjust that the less well-off lose their benefit entitlement because compensation has been awarded for a crime from which they have suffered. Has my hon. Friend considered speaking to the Secretary of State for Social Security on this matter?
My next concern is that a number of victims have had their claims rejected because they have failed to report a crime to the police or have not co-operated with the police. Between 1990 and 1998, there were some 38,000 cases in this category, representing 24 per cent. of all cases. The representative bodies advise me that they are seeing an increase in that instance. Unison, my union, cites an example in which a hospital worker was viciously attacked by a psychiatric patient. She did not notify the police for five weeks because she did not know that she could claim. She did not know about the criminal injuries compensation scheme until her union representative told her about it. She then filed a claim, but it was not accepted because she had not co-operated with the police.
Public sector service workers, particularly in the caring professions, are often reluctant to report assaults by clients to the police because they regard it—wrongly, in my view—as part of the job. Moreover, police involvement can also bring perceived difficulties to the client-worker relationship, particularly in the residential setting. Under the old scheme, the requirement to report incidents to the police was not so strict. Will my hon. Friend consider building in more flexibility in that regard?
Some employees believe that they are discouraged from notifying the police of such assaults to avoid bad publicity. It would also be helpful if the Minister could comment on that.
I hope that, under the review, the Minister will consider the 28-week rule for special earnings. Public service workers are often vulnerable because they face violence at work. They may be back at work before 28 weeks. As well as the loss of earnings, they may incur large bills as a consequence of their injury. Replacement teeth and glasses are common and costly expenses.
We should be proud of our compensation scheme. It was reluctantly accepted that the tariff system should operate, but the flip side was greater efficiency. There has been more efficiency and claims are processed more quickly. The rates were set in 1994, based on rates discussed in 1993, and they have not increased since. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us that the Government want to increase the tariffs—perhaps not at this stage but at some point in the future—in line with prices.
The upper limit should be lifted in extreme cases. I have noted the Home Secretary's comments that there is a desire to increase payments, especially in sexual attacks. I am sure that we all support that. In the most extreme cases, such as tetraplegia, a family could lose everything, so the award should be greater than the current limit of £500,000.
There is always fierce competition for extra resources. I have made a pitch this evening, but I make no apology for that. I want an improvement in the help given to those who, through no fault of their own, have had their lives destroyed by violent acts of crime.

Helen Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on securing this debate on an important topic. I shall make a few brief remarks based on my experience, before I came into the House, as a solicitor specialising in personal injury, when I was aware of the injustices that the scheme perpetrates on many victims of crime.
We should be clear that we are talking about innocent victims. Those who have contributed to their injuries in some way have their damages reduced accordingly. Many people have done nothing to bring such injuries on themselves, but are caught up in a difficult and complex scheme that does not always meet their needs.
When the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was introduced by the Conservative Government in April 1996, it was with the explicit aim of reducing costs. They accepted that a move from assessing damages on a common law basis to a tariff scheme would reduce many awards. The payback for that was to have been that claims would be dealt with much more speedily. My experience, and that of many of my friends working in a similar field, has been that that was not the case.
In a parliamentary answer given to me only yesterday, the Minister conceded that it was difficult to give the average times for claims being processed under the CICA, and I accept that, because cases vary widely. He said that, if the extremes of different cases were discounted, the average time for producing a first decision had dropped from nine months under the old Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to seven months under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.
We have paid a high price for a very small reduction. For instance, it is difficult for people to claim compensation for loss of earnings unless they have been absent from work for 28 weeks.
In another parliamentary answer given to me yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister, the figures show that the number of people claiming for loss of earnings has never risen higher than 0.69 per cent. of claims and has, on some occasions, been as low as 0.08 per cent. That figure does not reflect in any way the real loss of earnings that many people have suffered after a criminal injury.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford referred to the tariff scheme. As it exists, the scheme does not cope with the wide variation in the effects of sexual assaults, and needs revising in that area.
I am concerned that the quality of medical evidence obtained by the CICA is often very poor, particularly when one is dealing with cases of psychological damage. To challenge that, victims need to obtain their own medical evidence. If they are eligible for advice and assistance under the green form scheme, it is possible to persuade the Legal Aid Board to extend the green form to cover a medical report. In my experience, it is like pulling teeth to persuade the board to do so.
Most people are not eligible under that scheme, and the burden that is therefore imposed on people of very modest means—who must pay hundreds of pounds to obtain the necessary medical evidence and, in some cases, must obtain several medical reports from different specialists—is quite intolerable. They are suffering a second time after having been the victim of a crime.
The Government have done much to provide support for victims of crime, and to protect vulnerable people. I hope that, in looking at this matter, the Minister will take on board the deficiencies in the scheme and come up with something that enables people to claim adequate compensation, including compensation for loss of earnings and other expenses that they have incurred. At the moment, our victims of crime are treated much worse—and gain much less compensation—than those who engage in civil litigation for injuries that they have received. That cannot be a sensible or tolerable scheme.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on securing the debate, and thank him for allowing me some time to contribute. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), I was a personal injury lawyer before coming to this place. I dealt with many hundreds of claims involving the criminal injuries scheme—not the least of which was taking on the previous Government in the House of Lords on judicial review when they tried to produce a scheme that was found to be illegal, and which, ultimately, was replaced by the current scheme. In opposition, I was fortunate enough to be able to advise the current Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), on that measure. At the time, we highlighted a number of faults with the scheme.
In the short time available to me, I shall go through some of my shopping list of faults. After the election, I submitted a paper to the Home Office with some suggestions for improvements to the scheme. One of the problems with the previous review was that it failed to address the issue of eligibility. The rules have hardly changed since 1964, when the original scheme was

introduced, and it is high time that we had another look at them. We should do so with particular reference to domestic violence because the domestic circumstances that give rise to domestic violence claims often no longer fit the rather strict eligibility criteria. We also need to look at the position of those who have unrelated or spent convictions, who could still be penalised when making a claim to the board.
There are problems with the tariff scheme, some of which have been highlighted in the debate. There is a strong case for taking psychological injury and injuries sustained by victims of sex offences outside the parameters of the tariff scheme, because I do not think that many of those injuries are susceptible to reduction to a simple tariff system. Similarly with multiple injuries, the percentages do not do justice to the injuries of many victims.
There are problems generally with a fixed-tariff scheme, and there are alternatives in the form of a matrix or banding which would not cost more but would, potentially, produce a fairer result. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford referred to inflation, and the tariff is based on research that was originally carried out in 1992. The original intention was to uprate the scheme every three years. So far, we are still working with those somewhat out-of-date figures. This March or April, the Law Commission will publish a paper on levels of damages in personal injury claims. Perhaps when that is available, we can consider how the tariff scheme operates and whether the figures are a fair reflection of proper expectations.
Another problem is limitation, which was reduced to two years in the new tariff, as opposed to the normal common-law system of three years. We need to consider that with particular reference to children, because the limitation period runs from the date of injury, not the date of the achievement of the age of majority, which is the normal system in common law. I understand that the Law Commission is also to publish a paper in August on the law of limitation.
I share the sense of injustice of the families of people who were killed by murder or manslaughter who were not dependent on the victims of those homicides. They have lost out in the hiatus caused by the chaos of the reintroduction of the 1990 scheme. The 200 families should have had compensation of £10,000 but they had their applications dismissed. They would have qualified again under the reintroduced scheme, and the Government should redress the injustice. It would not cost much and I think that it could be done within the scheme's existing cash limits.
There is a cap on payments for injuries of maximum severity. Unfortunately, the scheme requires claimants to jump through hoops and prove the value of their claim with expert reports. That can significantly eat into the value of the claim. Claims can be many hundreds of thousands of pounds over the cap, and I hope that we can devise a system that does not make tetraplegics, for instance, effectively waste money to prove the value of their claims.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. Paul Boateng): This has been an interesting and well-informed debate. The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the


Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) for giving us the opportunity to reflect on the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which is of enormous importance to all our constituents, as our mailbags show.
This debate is timely in many ways, not least because the Government are considering whether any further changes to the scheme are necessary or desirable and, if so, whether wider consultation is needed. I hope that we will be able to make an announcement to the House soon about our intentions in that regard.
I am afraid, however, that I must disappoint my hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford, for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who have spoken with such passion, conviction and wisdom, because I will not be able to make any such announcement tonight; but I can share with them the Government's determination to put victims at the heart of the Home Office's criminal justice policy and our response to concerns arising from the criminal actions of others.
The state is not liable for injuries caused by the acts of others, but we are determined to continue to acknowledge in some way the public sense of responsibility for and sympathy with the blameless victim. Through the criminal injuries compensation scheme, the state provides a monetary award on behalf of the whole community.
Of course, the scheme no longer seeks to provide finely judged compensation covering every head of damage that might be awarded in a successful civil suit. My hon. Friends the Members for Hendon and for Warrington, North have practised as personal injury lawyers, and they know the distinction that must exist between a statutory scheme with limited purposes and the full weight of a civil justice system in which claims may be tested, and in which the victim is free, if the attacker is known, to bring an action. That right remains: the criminal injuries compensation scheme represents some extra public recognition of the harm suffered by a blameless victim.
There is no right sum of money to compensate a victim for the pain suffered as a result of a criminal injury. Any amount is, to some extent, arbitrary. As a result of experience of the scheme over a number of years, we have concluded that the tariff scheme represents the right approach. It is straightforward and transparent. It is simple for victims to understand, from the start they have a good idea of how much money they are likely to receive, and they receive that money more quickly than under the old scheme.
Hon. Members write to me in such numbers that I cannot but understand their concern to make sure that the scheme works as efficiently as possible. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is doing a good job in clearing claims under the new tariff scheme. To date, it

has issued a first decision within 12 months in 85 per cent. of cases. The new appeals system is also proving faster. We cannot be complacent about progress, but I am glad that it is being made.
Cases are being listed more quickly, and many applicants or their representatives are in the rather unusual position of having to request adjournments because they have not had time to prepare their cases. That is never a pleasant position for an advocate, as my hon. Friends will know, but it indicates the success of our measures.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford for underlining continuing concerns about the need to settle rapidly residual common law damages cases, some of which are proving particularly complex and demanding. In those cases, applicants are having to ask for adjournments in order to prepare their cases more fully, and it is difficult, once a hearings place is lost, to fill another at short notice. All that adds to the backlog, but we are determined to ensure that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority meets its target of clearing old cases by 31 March 2000.
As for the way forward, my hon. Friends have highlighted the concerns of their constituents about the scheme. I should make it clear that there is no prospect of a return to the common law damages scheme, or indeed to one based on individual assessment. That would increase unacceptably the cost of compensation and administration. In any compensation scheme that is dependent on public funds, there will always need to be that balance between the needs of the victim and the interests of the taxpayer. There will always be an argument as to where the balance lies.
As we consider the way forward for a possible review of the scheme, I undertake that, whatever the decision, I will continue to ensure that my office is open, and officials are available, to hon. Members on both sides of the House so that they can continue to make their input into ensuring that the scheme is one in which we as a nation are entitled to take some pride. After all, it is the most generous scheme in the world. It pays out more compensation than all the other countries in Europe added together—more than £200 million in 1997–98 alone and about £2 billion since the scheme started.
It is right that that should be the case. We must put the victim of crime first. We shall continue to do so—all the victims of crime, including public servants—and I assure the House that this debate has been a useful input into informing our decisions as to the best way forward. The victim of crime has come first and will continue to do so under this Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.